9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1251 - SCH - Companies LawInterim measure to deposit an amount of Rs. 3.22 crores with the Registrar of Company, Delhi towards fees for delay in filing Form SH-7 - HELD THAT - This amount has not been deposited. The petitioner has also not taken out any application seeking condonation of delay in making such deposit or permitting him to deposit in instalments. A petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has a discretionary element for this Court to consider. Because of the petitioner s conduct, we do not think such discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Otherwise also, we are also not satisfied with the petitioner s case on merit. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved: Non-deposit of amount directed by the Court, failure to seek condonation of delay, discretionary element under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, lack of satisfaction with petitioner's case on merit.
Non-deposit of directed amount: The Court had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 3.22 crores with the Registrar of Company, Delhi towards fees for delay in filing Form SH-7. However, the petitioner failed to comply with this directive by not depositing the specified amount. Failure to seek condonation of delay: In addition to not depositing the directed amount, the petitioner also did not take any steps to seek condonation of delay in making such deposit or requesting permission to deposit the amount in installments. This failure to address the delay further impacted the case. Discretionary element under Article 136: The Court highlighted that a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India involves a discretionary element for the Court to consider. However, due to the petitioner's conduct, the Court determined that exercising such discretion in favor of the petitioner was not warranted in this instance. Lack of satisfaction with petitioner's case on merit: The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner's case on merit, indicating that even apart from the procedural issues related to the non-deposit and delay, the substance of the petitioner's case did not meet the Court's standards. Dismissal of the petition: As a result of the non-deposit of the directed amount, failure to seek condonation of delay, lack of satisfaction with the case on merit, and the discretionary element under Article 136, the Court decided to dismiss the present petition. Additionally, any pending application(s) were also disposed of in light of this decision.
|
