Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ruchi Soya Industries Limited vs Unknown on 21 April, 2022
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
21.04.2022 Sl. No. 08 Srimanta Ct.No. 42 IA No.:CRAN/1/2022 in CRMSPL/15/2022 In Re : An application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
In the matter of : Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Company represented by its authorized representative, Pankaj Deb.
...petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Guha Thakurata, Adv., Mr. Bikash Kumar Roy, Adv., Ms. Tanuka Basu, Adv., Mr. Subhanu Nag, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Pravash Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Pratick Bose, Adv.
...for the State.
Mr. Anirban Mitra, Adv., Mr. Amit Halder, Adv., Md. Wasim Akram, Adv.
...for the opposite party no. 5.
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application is taken up for hearing in presence of the Learned Advocates for the petitioner and the private opposite party.
The petitioner/Company filed an application under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Court of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the private opposite parties. The said application was dismissed for non- prosecution and the accused persons/opposite parties were acquitted under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2The petitioner on bona fide mistake filed a revisional application before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court against the said order of dismissal of the complaint and consequent acquittal of the opposite parties. The Learned City Sessions Judge, Bench - II, Calcutta disposed of the said criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 18/2017 on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against an order of acquittal. After dismissal of the aforesaid revisional application the petitioner has preferred the application for special leave to appeal before this Court on 22 nd March, 2022. It is stated in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that in the meantime the petitioner/Company went on liquidation and in view of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Court all legal proceedings were deemed to be stayed. Subsequently, the Management of the Company was taken over by new set of Directors. Therefore, there was a delay of 849 days in preferring the application for special leave to appeal. The petitioner has prayed for condonation of the aforesaid delay.
Learned Advocate for the opposite party submits that in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the petitioner has failed to explain every day's delay. Secondly, it is contended by him that the application for special leave to appeal ought to have been filed by the petitioner before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court and in order to file it a leave should have been obtained by the petitioner from the revisional Court.
Having heard the submissions made by the Learned Advocates for the parties and on careful perusal of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act I like to record at the outset that while disposing of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Court is required to take a liberal approach. Pedantic and technical approach in the 3 matter of explanation of delay is consistently discouraged by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as all the High Courts of the Country. The principle is so established that citation of decisions is not necessary on these points.
On perusal of the record it is found that the judgment in Criminal Revision No. 18/2017 was passed on 17 th September, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner/Company went on liquidation. The accused persons were acquitted under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 7 th January, 2016. Therefore, It is found that the petitioner on bona fide mistake carried on the proceeding of criminal revision before the Learned Sessions Judge, Bench - II, City Sessions Court. Subsequently, the petitioner/Company went on liquidation. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 14 of both the Limitation Act as well as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Court.
Thus, I find that the petitioner has been able to establish sufficient cause in explaining the delay of 849 days in preferring the application for special leave to file appeal and the delay is condoned.
The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed on contest.
List the matter on 12th May, 2022 for hearing of CRMSPL 15/2022.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )