9911796707
TMI Blog1948 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fully informed of the circumstances which gave rise to the omission to register within the proper time and that the evidence, should not as is so often the case, merely state that the matter was accidental and due to inadvertence, without particularising the reasons for the breach of the statutory requirements and the surrounding circumstances. People seem to be under the impression that by merely saying that the omission was "due to inadvertence" the court is practically obliged to exercise the power, which I hold to be a discretionary power, under the relevant section which is, in fact, section 101 of the Companies Act, 1948, replacing section 85 of the Companies Act, 1929, which itself is taken, I think, from section 96 of the Act of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in that case by Romer, L.J. After calling attention to the fact that Buckley, J., in a previous case, had suggested that provisions ought to be inserted for the protection of unsecured creditors as such, Romer, L.J., expressed, as I understand him, dissent from that proposition. For very many years it has been the practice to insert in orders of this character a traditional and well-settled form of proviso for the protection of persons whose rights have accrued between the date of the charge and its actual registration where the period for registration has been extended; and there has been a good deal of judicial discussion on the precise effect of those words. I do not myself propose to add to that discussion. The protecting words wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was due to an obvious mistake. The solicitors of the chargee thought that the secretary of the company had registered the charge, as he ought to have done, and the secretary of the company thought that the chargee had registered the charge, as he might have done, and between the two of them each supposing the other had carried out the requirements of the section, they overlooked the fact that neither of them had done so. That seems to me to be inadvertence, inattention, carelessness, but very far removed from the kind of case in which this relief should be refused a typical case of which would be obviously a case in which there was some fraudulent or improper motive in withholding the knowledge of the existence of the charge from the publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
