9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge's summons indicates that the application is under section 18(4) of the Act as well. Company Petition No. 13 of 1966 itself was one for amendment of its memorandum by changing the registered office of the petitioner-company from one State to another State. This was ordered by this court by its order dated September 1, 1966. Under section 18(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, if the alteration of the memorandum involves a transfer of the registered office from one State to another, a certified copy of the order confirming the alteration shall be filed by the company with the Registrar of each of the States concerned and the Registrar of each State shall register the same and shall certify under his hand the registration thereof. Section 18(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel appearing for the Registrar of Companies that the applicant made an application for issue of the certified copy of the order only on September 7, 1966, and, therefore, the time taken between September 1, 1966, and September 7, 1966, ought not to be excluded under section 640Aof the Companies Act. On a perusal of the records, I find that the order was drafted only on September 8, 1966. It has therefore to be considered whether the time taken by the office of this court in drafting this order has to be excluded while computing the period prescribed by a statute in the performance of any act or application as required under law. I have been referred to a decision of this court in Saroja Mills Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Companies, Madras, until January 3, 1967. On an objection taken by the Registrar that the papers were filed out of time, the present application, apparently under section 13(4) and section 19 of the Act, was filed on January 21, 1967, for extension of time for registration of the document, after excusing the delay in filing the same earlier and to revive the order made by this court under section 17(5). It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the Registrar of Companies that this application is beyond time for the reason that the order worked itself out and became void and inoperative within the meaning of section 19(2) of the Act. This is an extreme contention and I am not persuaded to accept this. The order under section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evive the order. This has been done; the petitioner having filed this application on January 21, 1967, is asking for ( a ) extension of time for filing the order and documents with the Registrar, and ( b ) for a revival of the order dated September 24, 1966. I am inclined to excuse the delay in filing the documents and extend the time for filing the same as the delay was not deliberate but unintentional. In this view, the order under section 17 is automatically revived, if once time is extended for filing the documents under section 18(4) of the Act. The petitioner in this case has applied within a month from December 24, 1966, for extension of time to file the documents and also for revival of the order within the meaning of the proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
