Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (9) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder passed by the Hon ble Supreme court in India in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [ 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER ] extended the limitation period prescribed under law. Admittedly, the MOU which alleged to be forged and fabricated document did not form the basis of any adjudication. Therefore, Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C are not attracted in the facts of this case - there are no flaw in this finding. The Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits. - Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1137 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2021 - [Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) And (Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member(Technical) For the Appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mp vendor and the Chief Treasury Officer, Gaziabad from where it was informed that the stamp paper which was used for executing the alleged MOU was issued by the treasury on 21.08.2017 i.e. after the purported date shown in MOU. Thus, the Appellant has filed an Application under section 340 of the Cr. P.C before the Adjudicating Authority that in the interest of justice an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 195 which appears to have been committed or in respect of document which produced in proceeding and may make preliminary inquiry and record a finding to that effect make a complaint thereof in writing. 3. Ld. Adjudicating Authority after hearing Ld. Counsels for the parties is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t has raised a preliminary objection that the Appeal is barred by limitation as the impugned order was pronounced in open Court on 03.02.2020, therefore, within 30 the Appeal ought to have been filed by the Appellant till 04.03.2020. Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020 has extended the prescribed period of limitation with effect from 15.03.2020 and not the period up to which the delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagufa Ahmed Ors. Vs. Upper Assam Playwood Products Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 3007 3008 of 2020. Thus, the Appeal is apparently time barred. 6. It is stated in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rwah and Another (2005) 4 SCC 370 decided on 11.03.2005 held that in view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C the court is not bound to make a compliant regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words, court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice . 9. It is also pointed out that the Appellant has already filed criminal complaint on the ground that the MOU is forged and fabricated and by making wholly incorrect and false statements and police has registered an FIR bearing no. 218/2018 against the Director of Pawan Buildwell i.e. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Suneja (Respondent herein). Thus, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. The Appellant has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... What was extended by the above order of this court was only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute 13. In the light of the Sagufa Ahmed case we have considered the facts of this case. The impugned order passed on 03.02.2020 and the Appellant was required to file the Appeal within 30 days i.e. till 04.03.2020. However, in Suo Motu Writ Petition the period of limitation is extended for the cases in which the period of limitation expired on 15.03.2020 or thereafter. Whereas in the present Appeal the limitation is expired on 04.03.2020. Thus, the Appeal is apparently time barred by 299 days. Thus, the Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates