skt/- 1 66.appeal(l) 36.2009.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 36 OF 2009 IN CLB/COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2008 IN CLB/ COMPANY PETITION NO. 101 OF 2007 Bhupinder Singh Machre & Anr. ...Applicants/ Appellants Vs. Vivek Verma & Anr. ... Respondents -------------- Mr.D.D.Madon, Senior Counsel with Ms.Neeta Solanki i/by Kiran Jain & Co. for the Appellants. Mr.Vivek Menon i/by Ashwin Shankar, Advocate for the Respondents. -------------- CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17 th MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1. Mr.Madon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant fairly states that the Appeal is lodged beyond the period of time stipulated by Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. skt/- 2 66.appeal(l) 36.2009.sxw 2. However, he contends that an application for condonation of delay is filed, which is on board today. 3. In further fairness, Shri Madon, learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 10F of the Companies Act states that the Appeal in the High Court should be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or Order of the Company Law Board. The Appeal lies on the question of law. Shri Madon submits that the proviso to this Section enables the Court to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause, from filing the appeal. 4. Shri Madon, has invited my attention to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Brother S.J.Kathawalla, J.) in Company Application No.843 of 2009 in Company Appeal (Lodging) No.48 of 2009, dated 17 th September 2009, wherein, the learned Judge has taken a view that the Court has no power to condone the delay beyond 120 days provided by Section 10F of the Companies Act, skt/- 3 66.appeal(l) 36.2009.sxw 1956. 5. Shri Madon submits that the delay in this case is of 275 days. Clearly, therefore, the issue is covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge brought to my notice. In these circumstances, the Company Appeal cannot be entertained, as it is clearly beyond time. It is dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. However, it is clarified that this order does not affect other remedies of the appellant including filing cross-objections in Company Appeal No.11 of 2009 and if the objections are filed, the issue of their maintainability or otherwise to be dealt with, in accordance with law without being influenced by the order dismissing this appeal, as being barred by limitation. 7. In view of the above, Company Application No.646 of 2009 stands dismissed. [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ]