Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Both the condone delay petitions were dismissed on merits by order dated 12.09.2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. Against which the present revisions have been filed.

3. I have heard Mr.K.P.Ananthakrishna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms.Shase, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in both the revision cases.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner company had entered into financial trouble in or about the year 2009-10 with the result, the general running of the company came to a grinding halt as number of litigations including winding up applications have been filed against the petitioner company. In the said circumstances, this Court had appointed an Administrator by order dated 27.8.2013.

6. Per contra, Ms. Shase, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that merely because the company had been under the hands of the Administrator appointed by this Court, it cannot be said that no one was there to look after the company's affairs and for the said reason, the petitioner cannot plead that the delay that too to the extent of 459 days in preferring Crl.R.C.SR.No.11766/2015 and 452 days in preferring Crl.R.C.SR.No. 17516/2015 respectively before the first Appellate Court to be condoned.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the discussions made, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order impugned is very well sustained and in the result, this revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

18. As per the order of this Court, Ms.Shase, learned counsel was appointed as a legal aid counsel to represent the respondents in both the cases. Accordingly, she appeared before this Court and argued the cases on behalf of the respondents. Since the learned counsel had been appointed as legal aid counsel by order of this Court, she has appeared and has taken all efforts and after having thoroughly prepared the case, she projected it by taking all possible grounds and defences on behalf of the respondents. This attitude on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has to be appreciated.