9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for seeking an extension are outlined in the request letter dated 21.08.2024 submitted by respondent No. 2. There is merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the sufficiency or insufficiency of the reasons for an extension cannot be assessed by respondent No. 1. Such orders are routine unless and until tangible evidence is presented showing that the extension was sought for ulterior motives or to the detriment of stakeholders. The petitioners have not demonstrated any exception grounds, either publicly or otherwise, that could have warranted the rejection of the extension. Evidently, the issues highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the management of respondent No. 2's affa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking directions to quash or set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, issued by the respondent No. 1, i.e., Registrar of Companies, Delhi, whereby in purported exercise of powers under Section 96 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 [ the Act ], extension of three months has been granted to respondent No. 2 to hold its 40th Annual General Meeting for the financial year ending 31.03.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 are present on advance notice. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS: 5. Mr. Kathpalia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that no special reasons were provided by respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not practical to reflect the grounds for such decisions due to technical or software constraints. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 shared hard copies of the application dated 21.08.2024, submitted by the respondent No. 2, which contained the reasons for seeking an extension of time to hold the Annual General Meeting. It was argued that respondent No. 1 is neither required to conduct a mini-trial nor expected to assess the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for the extension. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order cannot be challenged in the present writ proceedings. 9. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2, largely echoed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t spell out 'special reasons' and appears not to have been issued in accordance with the mandate of Section 96 of the Act. However, there is more to the content of the impugned order than initially apparent. The reasons for seeking an extension are outlined in the request letter dated 21.08.2024 submitted by respondent No. 2. There is merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the sufficiency or insufficiency of the reasons for an extension cannot be assessed by respondent No. 1. Such orders are routine unless and until tangible evidence is presented showing that the extension was sought for ulterior motives or to the detriment of stakeholders. The petitioners have not demonstrated any exception g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
