9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of RoC, Maharashtra, since the statute expressly bars from using discretion either in condoning delay or for passing any orders on the ground of equity, this Bench will not have any legal authority either to condone the delay under sub-section (4) of section 18 or revive it under proviso of section 19 of the Act - C.P. NO. 242/18/KB/2011, C.P. NO. 67 OF 1982 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2011 - B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR, J. Pratap Chatterjee, Ms. Manju Bhutoria and Ravi Asopa for the Appearing Parties. ORDER 1. It is a company petition filed under sections 17 and 18 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') read with regulation 44 of Company Law Bard Regulations, 1991, seeking the reliefs as mentioned below : ( a ) Delay, if any, in making the instant application be condoned. ( b ) A fresh certified copy of the order dated 23rd April, 1983 passed by this Board in CP No.67 of 1982 be issued to the petitioner and/or its representative. ( c ) Leave be granted to the petitioner and/or its representative to file the necessary forms including Form Nos. 18, 21 and other relevant statutory forms if any, before the Registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the RoC, Maharashtra, in the belief that the registered office of the petitioner was shifted to the State of Maharashtra as it obtained receipts from 1985 to 1999 for all the records it filed with the RoC, Maharashtra. The said receipts were issued by the RoC, Maharashtra, with the registered number allotted by RoC, West Bengal, i.e., No. 24174. The petitioner states the issuing of receipts for filing of statutory records with the RoC, Maharashtra, indicates that the petitioner duly filed Form 21 at that point of time itself. Soon after of advent of e-filing, when the petitioner tried to file returns with the RoC, Maharashtra. As the same was refused by RoC, Maharashtra. As the petitioner could not make e-filing, the petitioner had sent the periodical returns by post along with necessary filing forms accompanied with the demand draft to the RoC, Maharashtra. The company wrote a letter dated 10th July, 2002 (A5) to RoC, West Bengal, making a request to inform the date and mode of transfer of records from RoC, West Bengal, to the Office of RoC, Maharashtra. 3. Responding to the same, the RoC, West Bengal, confirmed in a letter dated 24th July, 2002 (A6) that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m processed." 4. An view of the above situation, the petitioner prays this Bench to issue a fresh certified copy of the order dated 23rd April, 1983 along with other reliefs as mentioned above. The petitioner further submitted that if these prayers are not allowed, the petitioner will be exposed to various breaches under the Act and its officers be liable for criminal prosecutions, thereby, the petitioner sought for condonation of delay and also other reliefs for getting the company registered on the rolls of the RoC, Maharashtra. 5. Apart from this, the petitioner's counsel filed supplementary affidavit enclosing some statutory documents indicating uploading of the same on MCA portal with West Bengal CIN 024174. 6. The counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner reiterated the averments of the petition stating that the company submitted all the documents required under section 18 of the Act with RoC, Maharashtra, in the year 1986 ; having done so, the petitioner remained in the belief that the company has been continuing on the rolls of RoC, Maharashtra, because of which, the company kept on filing documents with RoC, Maharashtra, until e-filing came in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered memorandum, thereafter, the Registrar shall register the same and certify the same under his hand within one month from the date of filing of such documents. 11. According to sub-section (2), the certificate given by the Registrar will be conclusive evidence for all the requirements of this Act with respect to the alteration and the confirmation thereof have been complied with. According to sub-section (3), in the case of shifting of the company from one State to another, the certified copy of the order confirming the alteration shall be filed by the company with the Registrar of each of the States, and the Registrar of each such State shall register the same, and shall certify the same ; and the Registrar of the State from which such office is transferred shall send to the Registrar of other State all documents relating to company registered, recorded or filed in his office. Sub-section (4) indicates that the CLB by its order may extend the time for filing of such document under this section by such period as it thinks proper. 12. If section 18 is comprehensively read, it is clear that the company seeking shifting from one State to another State has to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner-company placed no material filing papers before respective Registrars within the time stipulated in the statute, even if it is presumed as filed within time, if no certification is not given, then the remedy is elsewhere but not before a Tribunal which is vested with limited powers. Since almost 28 years lapsed after this Bench passed order confirming the resolution shifting its registered office from the jurisdiction of RoC, West Bengal, to the jurisdiction of RoC, Maharashtra, since the statute expressly bars from using discretion either in condoning delay or for passing any orders on the ground of equity, this Bench will not have any legal authority either to condone the delay under sub-section (4) of section 18 or revive it under proviso of section 19 of the Act. 16. As to the citations filed by the counsel, I am of the view that this Bench cannot take " Shivalik " ( supra ) into consideration to revive the order already expired under the umbrella of delay of condonation, which is not permitted under sections 18 and 19 of the Act, hence, the ratio in the citation supra cannot be taken as precedent to apply the same in the present case. As to invoking of regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
