IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 Co.Appeal.No. 10 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.P.NO.25/2006 DATED 30/11/2007] .................... APPELLANT: ------------------- M/S.OSHON TREADS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY SRI.P.U.RAJAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON). RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. BY SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI. THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- CMA No.885 of 2011 & Co.A.No.10 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st May, 2011 ORDER/ JUDGMENT Basant, J. This petition is filed to condone the long delay of 1190 days in filing Co.A.No.10 of 2011. By the impugned order dated 30th November 2007 in Company Petition No.25 of 2006, the Company Court had ordered the winding up of the company under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The official liquidator was appointed as liquidator for the company. He has already taken into custody all the properties, goods and papers of the company. Steps have been taken in pursuance of the winding up order. Annexure-A2 produced along with the appeal shows that some items of the properties have already been sold and the auction has been confirmed by the company court. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner has come before this Court with the prayer to condone the long delay of 1190 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner in the Co.A.No.10 of 2011 2 company petition alone has been arrayed as the respondent. The appeal is filed in the name of the company in liquidation with its Managing Director at the time of the impugned order claiming to represent the company. 3. Respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Counter affidavit has been filed. The prayer for condonation of delay is stoutly opposed. It is submitted that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to explain the long and inordinate delay of 1190 days. The Managing Director of the company was arrested and produced before the company court long back. He was aware of the proceedings. Lot of steps have been taken in pursuance of the impugned order of winding up. Entertainment of the appeal at this distant point of time would cause untold difficulties to all concerned, it is urged. In the total absence of any valid reasons, the prayer for condonation of delay may not be accepted and the petition may be dismissed, it is prayed. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The delay is long and inordinate - 1190 days. Absolutely, no Co.A.No.10 of 2011 3 valid reasons have been shown to justify the prayer for condonation of such long delay. Sri.P.U.Rajan, the Managing Director of the Company at the time of winding up has appeared in person. He submits that the delay was not wilful or intentional, but the delay occurred as he could not find out prospective buyers with the requisite resources early enough to undertake the responsibility of filing this appeal. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that there are no justifiable reasons for condonation of the long and inordinate delay of 1190 days in filing the appeal. We do realise from the records made available along with the memorandum of appeal that many steps have been taken in pursuance of the impugned order of winding up. Without valid reasons, condonation of delay would prejudice not only the respondents herein, but also of the buyers in whose favour auction of the properties has been confirmed. We are satisfied that the delay does not deserve to be condoned. 6. In the view that we have taken on the question of condonation of delay, we feel it unnecessary to go into the Co.A.No.10 of 2011 4 other contentions raised. The respondent has raised a contention that this appeal in the name of the company by the former Managing Director is not justified without arraying the liquidator as a party. It is also contended that the others interested in the proceedings have also not arrayed as respondents. We do not think it necessary to go into those questions in detail. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the company appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/