Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Company Law Board Order in Share Transfer Dispute. Court upholds CLB's refusal to condone delay in filing application for rectification of register of members under Section 155 of Companies Act, 1956.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 96
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order of the Company Law Board (CLB) dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 for rectification of the register of members. The appellants, Gharda Chemicals Limited and others, had filed Company Application No. 127 of 1995 in Company Petition No. 77 of 1990 seeking to rectify the register of members. The CLB refused to condone the delay, holding that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause for the delay. The appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the facts and found that the delay was not adequately explained. The court noted that the appellants had knowledge of the alleged wrong entries in the register much earlier and had not acted promptly. The court held that the CLB's discretion was properly exercised and there was no ground to interfere. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The appellants sought condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 for rectification of register of members. The court held that the explanation for delay was not satisfactory and the CLB had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing condonation. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Company Law Board was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application for rectification of the register of members under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Company Law Board refusing condonation of delay.

Law Points

  • Condonation of delay
  • Limitation Act
  • Section 5
  • Sufficient cause
  • Companies Act
  • 1956
  • Section 155
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 27

Appeal No. 523 of 1996 from Company Application No. 127 of 1995 in Company Petition No. 77 of 1990

0000-00-00

Mr. Pravin Diwan, Advocate i/b. Maneksha & Sethna for the appellants; Mr. S.A. Diwan, Advocate for the respondents

Gharda Chemicals Limited, Dr. Keki H. Gharda, Aban Keki Gharda

Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, Maharukh Murad Oomrigar, Dr. Percy Rutton Kavasmaneck, Aban Percy Kavasmaneck, Colin Mario Rebello, Conard Anthony Rebello, Noshir K. Warden, Gharda Agro Chem Trust, N.M. Sharma, Hoshang C. Patel, Bai Ratanbai Gharda Hospital Trust, Mr. R. Kannan, Mrs. A. Ruby Madon, Mr. Fali Madon, Gharda Medical Foundation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of Company Law Board refusing condonation of delay in filing application for rectification of register of members.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought condonation of delay to allow their application under Section 155 of Companies Act, 1956.

Filing Reason

Appellants claimed that the register of members contained incorrect entries and sought rectification.

Previous Decisions

Company Law Board dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Issues

Whether the Company Law Board was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application for rectification of the register of members under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and should be condoned. Respondents opposed the condonation, stating that the delay was inordinate and unexplained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the discretion exercised by the Company Law Board in refusing condonation of delay was proper as the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay.

Judgment Excerpts

The court found that the explanation for delay was not satisfactory and the CLB had correctly exercised its discretion.

Procedural History

Company Petition No. 77 of 1990 was filed. Company Application No. 127 of 1995 was filed under Section 155 of Companies Act, 1956. The CLB dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Appeal No. 523 of 1996 was filed against that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 1956: 155
  • Limitation Act, 1963: 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Company Law Board Order in Share Transfer Dispute. Court upholds CLB's refusal to condone delay in filing application for rectification of register of members under Section 155 of Companies Act, 1956.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Regularisation of Irregular Allotment of Land for Commercial Complex in Navi Mumbai, Imposing Restitution of Rs. 100 Crore. The Court held that where irreversible economic and social consequences have crystallised over two decade...