KRISHNA VARUN Vs. CHITTOOR JAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been moved for condoning the delay in the filing of this appeal. It may be pointed out that the appeal had not been registered earlier on account of non-deposit of 50% of the decreetal amount before this Commission that was resolved by the order dtd. 29/12/2023. Accordingly, the deposit was satisfied and the appeal has now been registered as First Appeal No. 16 of 2024.

(2.) The delay has been explained by narrating the incorrect description of the status of the appellant and the wrong address shown in the complaint leading to non-service of notice, as well as the time taken by the appellant in seeking legal advice and then filing of the appeal in the first week of December, 2023. This has resulted in a delay which according to the appellant was 211 days but has been rightly calculated as 204 days by the registry.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has also advanced submissions in support of this application contending that the merits of the appeal are apparent, in as much as, the impugned order has been passed against the appellant firstly on an ex parte basis, and secondly the liability fixed is on erroneous grounds. The complainant ceased to be a director of the company vide resignation dtd. 30/9/2022, whereas the complaint giving rise to this appeal was thereafter filed on 7/11/2022 and has been finally decided on 18/4/2023. The contention therefore on merits is that the complaint could not have been filed against the appellant and even otherwise the description given in the complaint of the appellant as a Chief Executive Officer is incorrect. It is submitted that the appellant was the Chief Operating Officer when the agreement was entered into, but on account of his subsequent resignation as director, he ceased to represent the company in any capacity much less a CEO or a Director and hence his impleadment by name in the complaint was erroneous. The contention therefore is that by giving a wrong description and by impleading the appellant, the complaint suffered from misjoinder of party. He therefore submits that on both these counts and keeping in view the merits of the appeal, the delay deserves to be condoned.