9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad created a charge on his properties as per the agreement entered into with the bank. It was a duty of the appellant-company in terms of section 125 of the Act to get the charge registered with the Registrar of Companies. Non-registration of a charge is an offence punishable under section 142 of the Act. According to the bank since the company was not getting the charge registered it approached the Company Law Board for registration of the charge in terms of section 134 of the Act. Section 134 of the Act reads as follows : "134. Duty of company as regards registration and right of interested party.-(1) It shall be the duty of a company to file with the Registrar for registration the particulars of every charge created by the company, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e this Bench for final disposal pursuant to the Company Law Board Regulation, 1991, called upon for hearing and final disposal by this Bench on 5-1-2007. And upon perusing the said petition and upon perusing the letter No. SRNAO2739282 dated 4-8-2006, of the Registrar of Companies, Punjab, H. P. and Chandigarh that the particulars of charge created on 31-5-2005, for Rs. 1,85,00,000 in favour of the State Bank of India, Boileqgunj, which ought to have been filed on or before 30-6-2005. But Form No. 8 was actually filed with the Registrar of Companies on 4-8-2006, with the delay for the period from 30-6-2005 to 4-8-2006. The delay has been confirmed by the Registrar of Companies. This Bench is satisfied that the delay was caused due to inadv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant-company before deciding the same especially when costs of Rs. 15,000 were imposed upon the appellant. 6. After going through the legal provisions and the record of the Company Law Board, we are clearly of the opinion that the Company Law Board should have sent notice to the appellant-company. The version given by the bank should have been verified before the orders were passed. The Company Law Board, as already stated above, has also made factual errors in its order which show total non-application of mind. 7. However, despite holding so we cannot grant any effective relief to the appellant. The fact is that it was the duty of the appellant to get the charge registered. Though it has been strenuously contended by Sh. Ankush Sood a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
