9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel that in view of the fact that non-creation of a charge is an offence punishable under section 142, a party who is guilty of having committed an offence cannot be allowed to take advantage of having committed the said offence. As the charge now stands registered. It would be totally inequitable to set the clock back. Therefore, though we do not agree with the reasoning of the Company Law Board or the procedure followed by it, the appeal is rejected. - COMPANY APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2007 - DEEPAK GUPTA AND V.K. AHUJA, JJ. Ankush Sood for the Appellant. K.D. Sood for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. - This company appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany refuses to get the charge registered with the Registrar of Companies the same can be registered on the application of any person interested therein. The bank was definitely an interested party and could have got the charge registered. The bank moved an application before the Company Law Board. It also applied for condonation of delay in getting the charge registered. Before doing so the bank also asked the appellant to get the charge registered and also to move an application for condonation of delay. Various letters were sent during the year, 2006. The only response given by the appellant was on 18-1-2007, wherein it stated that the delay in filing the charge is due to the fault of the bank. The Company Law Board without issuing not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registrar of Companies within sixty days from the date of this order who shall take the relevant document on record immediately thereafter. Signed on this 12th day of January, 2007, at New Delhi. Vimla Yadav (Member)" 4. A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the same has been passed in a lackadaisical manner. The order of the Company Law Board is full of factual errors. First of all the Company Law Board has failed to notice that the petition under section 141 for condoning the delay had not been filed by the company but by the bank. Even thereafter the Bench has not given any reasons for accepting the application of condonation of delay except to state that it is satisfied that the delay was caused due to the inadver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
