9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enior panel counsel with Ms. Swati Mishra, Ms. Drishti Saraf and Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Advocates. For the Respondent Through: None JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 08th July, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 12695/2022 whereby the learned Single Judge directed the Appellants to make necessary amendments on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed nor was the application made within the stipulated time. 3. He states that even though several applications for registration of charge under Section 78 of the Act have been processed by the Appellants where Form CHG-1 has been submitted without affixing the digital signatures of the charge creator, yet the Petitioner/Respondent had alleged that due to mandatory requirement of affixing the digi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s could not have been issued to the Appellants. 6. He submits that Section 398 (1) (a) read with Section 400 of the Act authorises the Central Government to design and make rules with respect to documents that may need to be furnished for process of application of charge and further empowers the Government to decide electronic forms as an exclusive mode of application. Therefore, according to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to address. This stance is further supported by the instructions for form CHG-1, which do not explicitly accommodate situations where the company's cooperation can be presumed absent. Therefore, insisting on digital signatures in the form from a company who is refusing to register the charge in such circumstances would unduly hinder the rights of charge holders to secure their interests when a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
