9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition for condonation of delay of 201 days filed by the Appellant/Petitioner/Transferor Company. 2. The National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench -I, Chennai while passing the impugned order had among other things observed the following: "... It is seen from the order that the meeting of the equity shareholders of the Transferor Company had to be convened on 23.05.2019 and the meeting of the Unsecured Creditors was to be held on 16.05.2019 and in relation to the Transferee Company the meeting of the equity shareholders was required to be convened on 23.05.2019 and those of the unsecured creditors on 16.05.2019. Learned Counsel for the Applicants represent that the meetings of the shareholders and unsecured creditors of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sly approved the 'Resolution' approving the Scheme of Amalgamation. 4. It is the stand of the Appellant that the Chairman of the meeting of the 'Unsecured Creditors' and 'Equity Shareholders' had filed reports of respective meetings before the Tribunal, within the specified period. Also, that the 'Transferor' and 'Transferee' Company had served Notice of the Applications of the 'Statutory Authorities' for their 'Reports' as directed by the Tribunal, for consideration to sanction the scheme. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the 'Scheme of Amalgamation' is in the final stage of consideration and if such delay was not condoned, it would cause a significant adverse impact on the business operations of the 'Transferor' as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in refiling the accompanying Company Application was allowed. 10. Yet another order dated 29.03.2017, passed in IA No. 5 of 2017 MC (C.PTN. No. 1 of 2016(CP No. 1 of 2014) i) passed by the 'National Company Law Tribunal', Guwahati Bench in 'Adhunik Cement Ltd.'(Petitioner) is relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant to show that the delay of 441 days in preferring the connected restoration Application was condoned. 11. `The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out the order dated 01.01.2019 of NCLT, Mumbai Bench, in MA 1340/2018 in CA(CAA) 537/230- 232/2018, wherein the delay of 22 days in filing Company Scheme Petition was allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 2000/- as cost, to be paid in the account of Prime Minist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. It is well settled principle in Law that if the 'explanation' offered does not smack of mala fide, utmost consideration must be given to a Litigant/Suitor to condone the delay. 15. As far as the present case is concerned, the Appellant/Petitioner/Transferor Company in MA/102/2020 in CA/216 & 217/CAA/2018 in CP/ /CAA/ at Paragraph No. 4 had come out with reasons that the delay in filing the Company Petition was not an act wantonly and that the delay was due to their pre-occupation with internal compliance and closure of audit/accounts, and that the said reasons ascribed by the Appellant/Petitioner/Transferor Company do not smack of mala fide, as opined by this Tribunal. Viewed in that perspective, the observation of the NCLT, Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
