This court dismissed an application to condone a delay of 3340 days in filing a claim by an insurance company against a wound-up company. The court found the reasons for the delay unsatisfactory despite a prior condonation of a smaller delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Comp.A.No.29 of 2016 in
C.P.No.17 of 2004
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
Material on record and submissions discloses that SIV Industries Limited, was wound up on 25.08.2004. Contending inter alia that there was a delay of 131 days in filing the application in Form 66 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, before the Official Liquidator in C.P.No.17 of 2004, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai, has filed a application to condone the same. The claim is for a sum of Rs.11,50,19,009/-. As per the supporting affidavit to the application No.2853 of 2007 filed for condoning of 131 days, the last day for submission of the claims was on 12.11.2006. According to the applicant the transaction was entered into and records pertaining to the claim were maintained with the Investment Department of the Head Office at Mumbai. There was a communication gap between the Regional Office at Chennai and Head Office at Mumbai where the records were maintained and thus the claim under Form 66 could not be filled before 12.11.2006 which resulted in a delay of 131 days.
2
Madras, and further directed New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai to file the claim application before the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, within two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Now, the present Company Application No.29 of 2016 has been filed in C.P.No.17 of 2004 to condone the delay of 3340 days, in filing the claim related to the term loan availed by the company in liquidation with the respondent in C.P.No.17 of 2004.
"It is submitted that the entire original file related to SIV Industries was only at its Head Office, Mumbai and only for the purpose of filing the said application, the matter was sent to the Chennai legal department. The matter was handed over to one of our panel advocates and the erstwhile counsel engaged is in no further correspondence with the complainants and has not provided the copy of the order. Further there was no communication thereafter from the counsel and in the meantime there were change of offices due to transfers & promotions both at Regional Office and Head Office. Also there were shifting of records from one place to other and in the said process many files were misplaced and lost during the shifting including this one. The department was re-transferred to Regional Office premises subsequently. All these transfers and changes in employees handing the records resulted in many records being missed and without proper follow up. All along the Head Office at Mumbai is of the impression that the claim of the applicant in respect of debenture series and the term loan has been filed with the respondent and the same has
3
been accepted. Due to communication gap between the advocate and the officers, the non filing of the claim pursuant to the said order was not noticed.
filed for condoning the delay of 131 days in filing the claim, New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai, has stated that the transactions entered into and the records pertaining to the claim were maintained at the Investment Department, Head Office at Mumbai and that there was a
4
communication gap between the Head Office and the Regional Office. The reasons assigned in paragraph-5 of the affidavit, are almost the same excepting to state that files have lost during shifting.
18.01.2016
smi
5
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
smi
Comp.A.No.29 of 2016 in C.P.No.17 of 2004
18.01.2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 3340 days in filing the claim application regarding the term loan should be condoned.
Whether the reasons provided by the applicant for the inordinate delay were satisfactory.
Whether the applicant had exercised due diligence in filing the claim despite previous condonation of delay.
New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai
SIV Industries Limited
S.MANIKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
