9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e delay in filing the particulars of charge in Forms Nos. 8 and 13 by respondent No. 1 and to grant the company extension of time up to May 15, 1990, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act. 2. Shorn of all details, it transpires that the appellant-company executed a deed of assignment dated February 15, 1990, for assignment of certain rights of ground floor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections and so did respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Later, respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Company Law Board on April 16, 1992, praying for condonation of delay in filing particulars of charge in Forms Nos. 8 and 13, and for grant of extension of time up to May 15, 1990, on the plea that the appellants had failed to do so. Objections were filed by the appellants resisting condonation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar had no jurisdiction to entertain Forms Nos. 8 and 13 from respondent No. 1 as the alleged charge was only registerable under Section 125 of the Companies Act up to April 15, 1990. He also asserted that the delay involved in the matter was over two years and that the Company Law Board had wrongly treated it as one month and twenty-eight days taking the application made by respondent No. 1 before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue and had more concentrated on issues revolving round the validity or otherwise of the terms of the assignment deed dated February 15, 1990. 6. There is nothing to show that the company had taken any serious objection to condonation of delay on the ground that the Board order suffered from some infirmity or was perverse in any way. Moreover, it is not for us in this appeal to substitute our sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
