9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Order dated 31-1-1995, passed by the Western Region Bench of the Company Law Board (CLB) condoning the delay in filing the particulars of charge in Form Nos. 8 and 13 by the respondent No. 1 and to grant the company extension of time up to 15-5-1990, is under challenge in this appeal filed under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ). 2. Shorn of all details, it transpires that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oach the CLB. The appellant wrote to the Board taking a variety of objections and so did respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Later, the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the CLB on 16-4-1992, praying for condonation of delay in filing particulars of charge in Form Nos. 8 and 13, and for grant of extension of time up to 15-5-1990, on the plea that the appellants had failed to do so. Objections were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firstly the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain Form Nos. 8 and 13 from the respondent No. 1 as the alleged charge was only registerable under section 125 upto 15-4-1990 he also asserted that the delay involved in the matter was over two years and that the CLB had wrongly treated it as one month and twenty-eight days taking the application made by the respondent No. 1 before the Registrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues revolving round the validity or otherwise of the terms of the assignment deed dated 15-2-1990. 5. There is nothing to show that the company had taken any serious objection to condonation of delay on the ground that the Board order suffered from some infirmity or was perverse in any way. Moreover, it is not for us in this appeal to substitute our satisfaction for that of the Board in suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
