THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD. versus ROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 07-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 227 : 2026 INSC 33
The Property Company (P) Ltd. 
v. 
Rohinten Daddy Mazda 
(Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2026)
07 January 2026
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the Company Law Board-CLB, being a 
quasi-judicial body, could be said to have the power to condone 
the delay in filing an appeal u/s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; 
that even if s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, per say, could not be 
applied to quasi-judicial bodies, whether the principles underlying 
s.5 of the 1963 Act be made applicable to an appeal u/s.58(3) of 
the 2013 Act, instituted before the CLB; and that whether s.433 
of the 2013 Act, which was brought into force on 01.06.2016 in 
order to empower the NCLT and NCLAT respectively, to apply the 
provisions of the 1963 Act, could be given retrospective effect such 
that it applied to the CLB as well. 
Headnotes†
Companies Act, 2013 – ss. 58(3), 433 – Refusal of registration 
and appeal against refusal – Power of the Company Law 
Board-CLB to extend time or condone delay u/s.58(3): 
Held: Company Law Board-CLB, cannot condone the delay in 
filing an appeal u/s.58(3) of the Act since the provisions of the 
1963 Act would only apply to suits, applications or appeals, as 
the case may be, which are made under any law to ‘courts’ and 
not to those made before quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, unless 
such quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals are specifically empowered 
in that regard – Limitation Act, 1963. [Para 160 (iii)]
Companies Act, 2013 – ss.58(3), 433 – Limitation Act, 1963– 
ss.5, 14 – Refusal of registration and appeal against refusal– 
Power of the Company Law Board-CLB to extend time or 
condone delay u/s.58(3) – Respondent’s mother bequeathed 
the subject shares to the respondent through Will, of which 
* Author
228
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the respondent obtained probate – After 23 years, the 
respondent sought registration of the transmission of the 
shares – Appellant company refused such registration – As 
per s.111 of the “erstwhile Act-Companies Act, 1956, against 
such refusal the respondent was to file appeal within a period 
of two months, however, the respondent failed to take any 
action within the prescribed time period – Act of 2013 came 
into force, ss.111 and 111A of the erstwhile Act replaced by 
s.58 along with s.59 – Respondent filed appeal u/s.58 of the 
Act, 2013 before the CLB, along with an application u/Regn 44 
seeking the condonation of delay of 249 days in preferring the 
appeal, which was allowed – Appeal thereagainst dismissed 
by the High Court – Issues before this Court: Company Law 
Board-CLB, being quasi-judicial body, if has the power to 
condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s.58(3) – Even if s.5 
of the 1963 Act, per say, could not be applied to quasi-judicial 
bodies, the principles underlying s.5 of the 1963 Act, if can be 
made applicable to an appeal u/s.58(3), instituted before CLB – 
s.433 of the 2013 Act, brought into force on 01.06.2016 in order 
to empower the NCLT and NCLAT, to apply the provisions of 
the 1963 Act, if could be given retrospective effect such that 
it applied to the CLB as well: 
Held: (i) Although the appeal u/s.58(3) preferred by the respondent 
was made under the new provision of the Act, 2013, yet the body/
forum before which it was made i.e., Company Law Board-CLB, 
was one constituted under the provisions of the erstwhile Act – 
According to s.10E(4C) of the erstwhile Act, the CLB was a court 
only in the restricted sense, there existed no express provision 
which empowered the CLB to apply the provisions of the Act, 1963 
to the proceedings and appeals before itself.
(ii) Provisions of the 1963 Act-provisions that lay down a prescribed 
period of limitation as well as ss.4 to 24 of the 1963 Act, would 
only apply to suits, applications or appeals, as the case may be, 
which are made under any law to ‘courts’ and not to those made 
before quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, unless such quasi-judicial 
bodies or tribunals are specifically empowered in that regard.
(iii) Power to extend time u/s.5 of the 1963 Act cannot be resorted 
to by statutory authorities, quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, unless 
expressly indicated – When such authorities or bodies are deemed 
to be a court for certain limited or specified purposes, such a legal 
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 
229
The Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda
fiction must not be extended beyon

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.