1963 (12) TMI 15 - HC - Companies Law

Memorandum of association Alteration to be registered within three months and Exclusion of time required in obtaining copies of orders of Court

Summary

Issues:
- Timeliness of copy application under Companies Act, 1956

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of the timeliness of a copy application under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner applied for a copy of an order confirming an alteration, and the question arose whether this application was made within the stipulated time frame as per the relevant statutory provisions.

To resolve the matter, the court referred to sections 18, 19, and 640A of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 18(1) mandates that an order made under section 17(5) must be filed with the Registrar of Companies within three months from the date of the order. Section 19 outlines the consequences of failure to comply with this requirement, stating that the order confirming the alteration shall become void and inoperative after the specified period, unless revived on sufficient cause being shown within an additional one-month period as per the proviso to section 19(2). Section 640A provides for the exclusion of time required in obtaining copies of court orders when calculating the filing period with the Registrar.

The petitioner argued that the time taken by the court to draw up the order should be added to the three-month period, independent of the time taken to supply a copy of the order. On the other hand, the Registrar contended that any application filed beyond three months from the date of the order, even within the additional one-month period, would be out of time, citing a previous decision. However, the court distinguished the present case from the precedent, noting that the copy application was made within three months of the order's drawing up, in compliance with section 18(1) read in conjunction with section 640A.

Ultimately, the court held that the copy application filed on June 24, 1963, was within the permissible time frame. By excluding the time taken for supplying the copy of the order, the petitioner had met the statutory requirements for filing the order with the Registrar within the stipulated period. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming the timeliness of the copy application and the subsequent filing with the Registrar.