TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it, separate vakalatnama which would be disadvantageous to the appellants. Appeal was filed on 31st March 2017, and the defect was to be removed within 7 days i.e. by 7th April 2017. Therefore, no extension of time could have been granted even by the Registrar to remove the defects particularly when the Appellate court has no power to condone delay after 90 days of receipt of judgment which expired on 7th April 2017 in the present case. In the present case, curiously the applicant has not explained the delay and laches on his part. It has not explained that why the appeal was not filed within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment i.e. by 21st February 2017. They have also not explained the delay for preferring the appeal for another 38 days i.e. till 31st March 2017 when it was filed - Though it was open to the applicant to file a petition before Appellate Tribunal with prayer to ignore the minor defects, no such application was filed by appellant. The appeal was taken back on 3rd April 2017 and they re-filed on 1st May 2017 i.e. beyond the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of judgment passed by Tribunal, when Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manager of the appellant, the order setting aside the ex parte award, in fact, amounts to review. The decision in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844: AIR 1970 SC 1273] is distinguishable. It is an authority for the proposition that the power of review is not an inherent power, it must be conferred either specifically or by necessary implication. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the Act themselves make a distinction between procedure and powers of the Tribunal under the Act. While the procedure is left to be devised by the Tribunal to suit carrying out its functions under the Act, the powers of civil court conferred upon it are clearly defined. The question whether a party must be heard before it is proceeded against is one of procedure and not of power in the sense in which the words are used in Section 11. The answer to the question is, therefore, to be found in sub-section (1) of Section 11 and not in sub- section (3) of Section 11. Furthermore, different considerations arise on review. The expression review is used in the two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders of Tribunal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by the Tribunal with the consent of parties. (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved and shall be in such form, and accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days from the date aforesaid, but within a further period not exceeding forty-five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period. (4) On the receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal shall, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against. (5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal was filed on 1st May 2017. 13. Section 422 of the Companies Act 2013 deals with expeditious disposal of petitions by Tribunal and Appeals by Appellate Tribunal. Therein it is stipulated that the appeal should be disposed of expeditiously and endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal within 3 months from the date of filing of the appeal. For proper appreciation it is desirable to quote Section 422, quoted below: - 422. Expeditious disposal by Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. - (1) Every application or petition presented before the Tribunal and every appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal shall be dealt with and disposed of by it as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour shall be made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, for the disposal of such application or petition or appeal within three months from the date of its presentation before the Tribunal or the filing of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. (2) Where any application or petition or appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in sub- section (1), the Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, shall record the reasons for no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order on 7th January 2017 was required to file within 45 days i.e. by 21st February 2017. For the purpose of condonation of delay under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 421, the Appellate Tribunal could have condoned the delay if it would have been filed within another 45 days i.e. by 7th of April 2017. After 7th April 2017, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay or to entertain the appeal. 21. Appeal was filed on 31st March 2017, and the defect was to be removed within 7 days i.e. by 7th April 2017. Therefore, no extension of time could have been granted even by the Registrar to remove the defects particularly when the Appellate court has no power to condone delay after 90 days of receipt of judgment which expired on 7th April 2017 in the present case. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has inherent power to condone the delay and thereby to do substantive justice. We do not subscribe to such submissions in view of the specific provision made under sub-section (2) of Section 421 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Constrution Company [2001] 8 SCC 470, wherein the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
