Cause Title: THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD. VERSUS ROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Company Law Board or Tribunal cannot condone delays in filing appeals unless the law expressly grants them such power, clarifying that the authority to condone delay lies with courts and not with quasi-judicial bodies unless specifically provided under their governing framework.
observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while setting aside order of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the Company Law Board’s decision to condone a 249-day delay in filing an appeal under the Companies Act, 2013.
The dispute arose when the company refused to register the transmission of shares claimed by the respondent under his mother’s will. Although probate was granted in 1990, the respondent sought transmission only in March 2013, which the company rejected in April 2013.
Under the Companies Act, 1956, an appeal had to be filed before the CLB within two months, but the respondent missed the deadline. In February 2014, during the transition to the Companies Act, 2013 (before the NCLT was set up), he filed an appeal before the CLB under the new law with a 249-day delay. The CLB condoned the delay, and the Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision, prompting the company to move to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala held that the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act lies exclusively with courts and cannot be exercised by quasi-judicial authorities unless the statute expressly confers such power.
