9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under section 18(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 for condoning delay and extending time for filing required documents with the Registrar. 2. Preliminary objection raised by the Registrar of Companies regarding the maintainability of the application under section 18(4). 3. Interpretation of sections 18 and 19 of the Act as amended in 1960. 4. Analysis of sub-sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of section 18 and sub-sections 1 and 2 of section 19. 5. Examination of the power of the court to extend time for filing documents or for registration of alteration. 6. Impact of failure to register the alteration within the prescribed time under section 19(2) and its proviso. 7. Consideration of the effect of the amendment in 1960 on the relevant provisions. 8. Application of the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 19 regarding extension of time. 9. Comparison of the present case with a previous order in Application No. 2514 of 1958. Detailed Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application under section 18(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking to condone a delay in filing required documents with the Registrar for registration of an alteration confirmed by the court. The Registrar of Companies raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the application, arguing that there is no power under section 18(4) to condone the delay and extend the time. The court delves into a detailed analysis of sections 18 and 19 of the Act as amended in 1960 to address this issue. Section 18 of the Act deals with the registration of alterations within a prescribed period. Sub-section (1) mandates filing the necessary documents with the Registrar within three months from the date of the court order confirming the alteration. Sub-section (4) empowers the court to extend the time for filing documents or for registration of the alteration as deemed appropriate. However, the Registrar contends that this power should be restricted due to the provisions of section 19, which outline the consequences of failure to register. Section 19(2) stipulates that if the required documents are not filed within the specified time, the alteration and court order become void and inoperative. The proviso to section 19(2) allows the court to revive the order upon a sufficient cause shown within a further period of one month. The court emphasizes that the power to extend time is constrained by the provisions of section 19(2) and its proviso, indicating that an application for extension must be made before the order becomes void and inoperative. The court rejects the petitioner's argument that section 18(4) confers unrestricted power to condone delay and extend time, emphasizing that the interplay between sections 18 and 19 limits this power. It upholds the Registrar's objection, ruling that there is no authority to condone the delay and extend the time as the application was made beyond the period provided by the proviso to section 19(2). Additionally, the court addresses a comparison with a previous order in Application No. 2514 of 1958, where a delay was condoned and time extended. However, it notes that the precise scope of the relevant provisions was not considered in that instance, and the Registrar did not raise any objections. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition with no order as to costs, affirming the Registrar's objection and the limitations on extending time under the Act.
|
