High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101308-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 851 of 2024 Appellant :- Ramayan Ram Respondent :- Official Liquidator Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla, Kunal Ravi Singh, Ram Sheel Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Pratik Kumar Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 153 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed. 2. The appeal is barred by 765 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant, inter alia, indicating that the appellant is resident of Haryana and was an erstwhile employee of the Auto Tractors Ltd., the company in liquidation. The order impugned was passed on 20.09.2022 and unfortunately the counsel, representing the appellant, died on 15.11.2022 and the appellant was not informed of the dismissal of the application. It is only when the appellant made an inquiry in the year 2024 pertaining to the status of the application that he became aware of dismissal of the application and death of the counsel whereafter immediate steps were taken for obtaining certified copy of the order impugned and filing the appeal. Based on the said submissions, prayer has been made seeking condonation of delay.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, though does not dispute the fact that the counsel representing the appellant had died on the date indicated, i.e., within about two months of the passing of the impugned order, submitted that the appellant should have made inquiry earlier and, therefore, the application deserves dismissal. 4. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up on 14.02.2003 and the claim of the appellant pertains to the years 1980 to 1990 as a worker of the company in liquidation. The residence of the appellant, admittedly, is at Haryana and the claim made that he was waiting for his counsel to indicate the outcome of the application cannot be disputed. As the counsel unfortunately died within a period of two months from the date of the order passed, apparently, no communication took place and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has failed to point out sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 7. Heard on the appeal. 8. Counsel for the appellant referred to the order of this Court in Satya Prakash Srivastava Vs. Official Liquidator : Special Appeal Defective No. 848 2024 decided on 27.02.2025, wherein in similar circumstances, based on the fact that similar nature applications were allowed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal was allowed. 9. In the case of Satya Prakash Srivastava (supra), a similar application filed, seeking condonation of delay in submitting Form-66 before the Official Liquidator pursuant to the notice issued in the daily Newspaper dated 11.12.2010 inviting the claims from the erstwhile employees and other claimants of the Company was allowed, inter alia, with the following observations:
Decision
“10. The application filed by the appellant, though was filed and was pending on 07.08.2024, for reasons best known, did not come up before the Court on the said date. However, when the same came up before the Court, it was indicated that no good reason has been assigned and that as per above order dated 07.08.2024, no application shall be entertained, the same was liable to be rejected. 11. It is not in dispute that all the delay condonation applications were filed in relation to the claims made before the Official Liquidator pursuant to the advertisement issued on 11.12.2010, the cause of the appellant was not different from other applicants whose applications were allowed by the order dated 07.08.2024. Further, the indication made that no further claim shall be entertained in order dated 07.08.2024 also, apparently could not apply to the case of the appellant, whose application was already pending before the Court. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, who is a retrenched employee of a Company in liquidation and is seeking to get his dues which pertains to the year 1990, the rejection of his application seeking condonation of delay is not justified. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Application No. 191 of 2023 is set aside. The application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay, on account of parity to other applicants, whose applications have been allowed by the learned Single Judge on 07.08.2024, is allowed. 14. The appellant is directed to file his claim on prescribed Form-66 before the Official Liquidator within 15 days from today. In case, the application is filed within the time granted by this Court, the Official Liquidator shall entertain and process the same.” 7. Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute that the issue, as raised in the present appeal is similar to that in Satya Prakash Srivastava (supra) though the application by the said Satya Prakash Srivastava was filed later to the application filed by the petitioner, which came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge on Civil Misc. Application No. 153 of 2022 is set aside. The application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay, on account of parity with other applicants, whose applications have been allowed, is allowed. 9. The appellant is directed to file a claim on prescribed Form-66 before the Official Liquidator within a period of one month from today. 10. In case the claim is filed within the time granted by this Court, the Official Liquidator shall entertain and process the same in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 P.Sri./Sharad (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad