Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 62 - HC - Companies LawDirections against the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for not making available copies of documents as directed by the appellate authority - Held that - Considering the list of dates and events which is all that the petitioner appearing in person relied upon, no merit in the appeal. Learned single Judge made every endeavour to ensure that the documents are made available to the petitioner and towards that objective, even fixed a date, time and place vide order dated 16.08.2012. The petitioner, however, never visited the office of the standing counsel for Government of Delhi (counsel for ROC) on the said date or time, but went five days later. Obviously the records were not available when the petitioner so visited. The petitioner has been only insisting that the records should have been made available when he chose not to go to the counsel, an aspect dealt with by the single Judge in the order dated 03.10.2012. The petitioner has been unnecessarily obstinate inasmuch as even in the order dated 03.10.2012, it is noticed that the single Judge offered it to the petitioner that another date can be fixed, but the petitioner was not willing to indicate any other date. Despite this, the single Judge has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the office of ROC so that direction dated 16.08.2012 could be complied with as and when the appellant chooses to go to the office of the ROC. The litigation is being carried out unnecessarily without any purpose.
Issues:
Petitioner seeking directions against Registrar of Companies for document availability, Contempt Case for compliance of orders, Allegations of missing documents and incomplete files, Dispute over inspection of documents, Allegations of insult to court order and rude behavior, Appeal against non-provision of files for inspection, Claim of defamation under IPC. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions against the Registrar of Companies for not providing copies of documents as directed by the appellate authority. The respondent eventually provided copies, but the petitioner raised concerns about the documents not being numbered or certified as true copies. The court directed the petitioner to identify specific documents for certified copies under the Companies Act, and upon application, certified copies were to be provided without delay, leading to the disposal of the writ petition. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case seeking compliance with previous orders. The court noted the petitioner's grievance about missing and incomplete documents, and after issuing notice to the Registrar of Companies, directions were given for the petitioner to inspect and obtain authenticated copies of the relevant documents, with the option to apply for certified copies if needed. 3. A subsequent application in the Contempt Case highlighted the petitioner's dissatisfaction with the counsel's failure to provide files for inspection as scheduled. The court dismissed the application but allowed the petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies for compliance with the previous directions at a convenient time. 4. In the appeal, the petitioner alleged insult to a court order, rude behavior, and non-availability of records during a visit to the counsel's office. The court found no merit in the appeal, noting the petitioner's failure to visit the counsel's office on the specified date and time, leading to the records not being available. Despite the court's efforts to facilitate document access, the petitioner's obstinance and unnecessary litigation were highlighted, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the petitioner's lack of cooperation in following the specified procedures for document inspection and retrieval, leading to unnecessary litigation and delays in compliance with court orders.
|