Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Board Companies Law - 2014 (7) TMI Board This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 142 - Board - Companies LawRegistration u/s 125 - mortgage and creation of charge - Execution of Form 8 - Held that:- respondent No 1 Company authorised one of its director to execute the documents and sign the necessary forms in respect of mortgage and creation of charge. The director who was authored to sign Form 8 is also stated to have appended his digital signature on the Form 8 creating the charge. Thus, the R1 Company has fulfilled its obligations and has not made any default which requires the Bench's indulgence to direct the R1 Company and any of its officers to make good the default. The director who was authorised by the R1 Company to execute the documents is stated to be a director of another company which is a defaulting company. In the said circumstances, it is for the petitioner company to ventilate its grievances against the R1 Company. Seeking directions from the Bench by invoking jurisdiction as vested under section 614 is my view is completely misplaced. As stated supra the company and its officers who has been authorised to file Form 8 for creation of charge has complied in creation of charge and in filing of Form 8 with ROC. On the other hand, from the pleadings it is seen that the company's inability to file Form 8 is due to MCA online services not accepting the digital signature of the director who has signed the Form 8 due to his default in some other company. In such a situation no directions can be issued against R2 as Section 614 of the Act envisages issue of directions by Company Law Board only against the company and its officers who are in default and not against anyone else. In view of the reasons as stated above the petition has miserably failed both on facts and on law and the petitioner company is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for - Decided against assessee.
|