TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Petitioner did not produce the copy of the order for registration and the same was done after the expiration of more than two years which is beyond the time limit prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 - The representation so made by the Petitioner was only for mutation of ownership. Held That:- Request for mutation was rightly refused by the respondents as the same was made out of the prescribed time limits and was only for mutation of entries - If the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of the Judgment passed by the Division Bench, the request made by the petitioner is well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 23 - Interpretation given by the Respondents to compute the period of limitation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was filed in Comp.A.No.258 of 2012 in C.P.No.153 of 2010 and an order was passed by the Company Court on 24.08.2013, as against which an appeal was preferred in O.S.A.No.359 of 2013, which was dismissed by the Honourable Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Madras on 04.04.2014. Thus, on and after the Judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench, the said scheme attained finality. After obtaining the Judgment, the petitioner approached the registration authorities for registering the same along with demand draft of ₹ 16,00,000/- towards registration charges. According to the petitioner, they are entitled to the benefit of the remission notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1224, dated 24.04.1964. 5. The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred as against the said order. Therefore, the petitioner sought for registration of the copy of the order, dated 08.04.2011, after the expiration of more than two years beyond the time limit prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act. 9. Further, it is submitted that the copy of the Court decree or Order is not a compulsorily registrable document. However, if the petitioner desires to register the same, it should be presented in person at the proper Sub-Registrar Office, within the time limit prescribed adhering to the provisions of Sections 29(2), 32 and 23 of the Registration Act and since the petitioner brought the copy of the order, dated 08.04.2011, belatedly during June 2014, the same was refused to be entertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, such document shall be accepted for registration. 13. Admittedly, the order dated 08.04.2011, which is sought to be registered was not presented within the time limit prescribed under the statute. The request made by the petitioner by way of representation to the Sub-Registrar, Chokkikulam, P.B.Kulam and Vadipatti was only for mutation of entries and not for registration of the copy of the order. Therefore, such request for mutation was rightly refused by the respondents. 14. The petitioner would state that the scheme of demerger attained finality only after the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench in O.S.A.No.359 of 2013. The respondent would ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date on which the final decree was passed by the Subordinate Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the document presented before the respondent is hopelessly barred by time. However, the Proviso appended to section 23 makes it clear that a copy of decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which it was made or whether it is appealable within four months from the date on which it becomes final. It is not in dispute that unless the parties to the proceedings deposit the required stamps, final decree cannot be drafted. Taking into consideration the difficulties expressed, ultimately the court concerned accepted the case of the appellant/petitioner/first defendant and extended the time for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with the order of sanctioning the scheme, dated 08.04.2011. Thus, the said application had an effect on the final orders passed by the Company Court while approving the demerger scheme. Therefore, unless and until, the application was decided, the allocation of shares could not have been determined and the matter could not said to have attained finality. 17. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Honourable Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Madras in O.S.A.No.359 of 2013 wherein, it was contended that the scheme of demerger itself is outside the scope of Section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, and beyond the scope of the application filed on behalf of the respondents therein. Since the remova ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
