Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1976 (10) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provisions of section 18 of the Companies Act, 1956, required the order to be filed within three months from the date of the order together with a printed copy of the memorandum as altered. The petitioner failed to file the documents within the requisite time. The effect of failure to file the documents within time is specifically provided for in section 19 of the Act which states that if the documents are not filed, then the proceedings connected with the same shall become void and inoperative. Consequently, the order ceased to have effect on 26th June, 1976, as stated in the application. There is a proviso to section 19, which enables the court to revive the order within a further period of one month. Assuming that the facts stated in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncement, by any court". The consequence of this saving clause is to protect proceedings which are already pending before the court or which have been already decided by the court. As it happens, the order passed in Company Petition No. 21 of 1975 by me on 5th March, 1976, was passed after 1st February, 1975. As there is no dispute that the said order was passed with jurisdiction, I presume that the proceedings in Company Petition No. 21 of 1975 were pending in this court before the Amendment Act came into force. This means that nothing in the Amendment Act is to apply to those proceedings. If nothing in the Amendment Act is to apply to those proceedings, naturally, it would follow that sections 18 and 19, as standing prior to the Amendmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he consequence would be that there would be no default and the order would not become void, as the amended section only states that the order of the Company Law Board will become void. This would mean that in spite of the intention of the law, the order of the court would remain as it is. I do not think that this was the intention of the legislature. The consequence, in my view, would still be the same as if the Act had not been amended. This means that the unamended section 19 would have to apply to the order passed on 5th March, 1976, and it would become void after passage of the requisite period of three months. After that, the only way in which the proceedings could be revived would be either by making an application under section 18(4) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nths. The date of the passing of the order was 5th March, 1976. Therefore, the period of three months expired on 4th June, 1976. The application should have been made by 4th July, 1976. In fact, it has been filed on 22nd July, 1976, which would make the application 18 days late. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner states that the period of three months provided for in section 18 and also mentioned in section 19(2) does not only mean the expiry of three months from the date of the order, but also the copying days have to be allowed, i.e ., the time required in obtaining a copy of the order for filing before the Registrar of Companies, has also to be allowed. There is a specific section in the Act of 1956, viz. , section 640A, prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es mentioned on the certified copy. The construction of the term "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act is that every day's delay must be explained. I do not think that it is desirable that such a construction should be placed on section 19(2) because an order of the court has already been passed after due enquiry and the company should not be penalised for the default of the advocate, who had misplaced the copy of the order as stated in the affidavit. I accordingly think that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the cause shown is sufficient for this purpose. I accordingly revive the order, but the applicant/petitioner must pay the Registrar's costs. The costs are computed at Rs. 100, which should be paid within one month .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates