TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal is to assess the due diligence of parties craving for condonation. In fact, failure to adopt/resort to vigilance or extra vigilance by the concerned party ought not to be a ground for ousting it from Litigation. 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. This Tribunal, to prevent an Aberration of Justice and to Secure the Ends of Justice interferes with the impugned order passed by the NCLT, Division Bench -I, Chennai and allows the instant Appeal by condoning the delay in question. The present Appeal is allowed, but without Costs. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 162 of 2020 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of filing of the Chairman s reports, however, the same came to be filed only on 24.01.2020 for unavoidable causes resulting in delay of 201 days and in the circumstances this Application is filed seeking for condonation of delay in filing the Company Petition. Perusal of the Application shows in paragraph 4 , which is the cause/ reason as pointed out by the Counsel for the Applicant for the delay in filing the Petition. However, perusal of the circumstances resulting in the delay in filing the Company Petition has failed to clearly explain the delay caused in filing of the Company Petition. Further, we find that the reasons given there under cannot be considered as unavoidable causes etc. and resultantly dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Company and as a result thereof, they should not be deprived of the benefits under the scheme, if the delay in filing the petition was not condoned. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the fact that the period of delay cannot be construed to measure the negligence on the part of the Appellant for the purpose of condoning the delay. Moreover, the Appellant was not inactive and was not negligent in taking steps for filing the Application for sanctioning of Scheme of Amalgamation . That apart, there was no gross negligence on the part of the Appellant in filing the Petition before the Tribunal. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the order dated 10.02.2016 in C.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct,2013 etc.) the main prayer was for the condonation of delay of 201 days in filing the connected Company Petition. As a matter of fact, at paragraph 4 of the Application it was averred as follows: It is submission of the Applicant Companies that the delay in the filing of the Company Petition was not an act done wantonly by the Applicant Companies and was due to their preoccupation with internal compliance and closure of audit/accounts. I state that no prejudice or injustice would be caused to any of the stakeholders involved in the present scheme of amalgamation if the said delay were to be condoned by this Hon ble Tribunal. I state that severe prejudice and injustice would be caused if this application is not allowed. 13. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly explain the delay caused in filing of the Petition etc. and finally dismissing the Application/Petition is clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law. Therefore, this Tribunal, to prevent an Aberration of Justice and to Secure the Ends of Justice interferes with the impugned order passed by the NCLT, Division Bench -I, Chennai and allows the instant Appeal by condoning the delay in question. 16. In fine, the present Appeal is allowed, but without Costs. The impugned order dated 13.02.2020, in MA/102/2020 in CA/216 217/CAA/2018 is set aside by this Tribunal, for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. Resultantly MA/102/2020 is allowed. IA No. 2309/2020 is closed with direction to the Appellant to file the certified copy of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
