C.P. No. 1 of 2013. Case: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Nagarjuna Travels and Hotels Ltd.. Company Law Board

Case NumberC.P. No. 1 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Santosh Ukkur
JudgesKanthi Narahari, Member (J)
IssueCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 125, 134, 614
Judgement DateMarch 12, 2014
CourtCompany Law Board


Kanthi Narahari, Member (J), (Chennai Bench)

  1. The present petition is filed under section 614 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') read with regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 ('CLB Regulations') praying this Bench to direct the R1-company and its directors to register under section 125 of the Act, the mortgage created by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner-company sanctioned a short-term loan of Rs. 50 crore to the Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. ('DCHL') on 4th May, 2010. The entire amount was disbursed and transferred to the bank account of DCHL. Further DCHL also applied for a working capital demand loan facility of Rs. 50 crore from the petitioner which was also sanctioned by the petitioner. The said amount was disbursed and transferred to the bank account of DCHL. The Board of directors of R1-company passed a resolution dated 16th July, 2012 agreeing to guarantee the payment of the debt of Rs. 100 crore to the petitioner on behalf of DCHL and also agreeing to mortgage its immovable property comprising of land and building constructed thereon hearing Municipal No. 3-6-356, 557, 358 near Gandhi Medical College, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad all together measuring 1580 sq. yds. to secure the loans under the short-term loan facility and WCDL facility by DCHL. The articles of the R1-company authorised the respondent No. 1 to provide a corporate guarantee and to create security over its property. The respondent No. 1 executed an affidavit-cum-indemnity dated 18th July, 2012 and deposited title deeds relating to the mortgaged property and created mortgage in favour of the petitioner-company. The memorandum was executed on 19th July, 2012. The R1-company also executed Form 8 for registration of charge created by it over the said mortgaged property in favour of the petitioner-company on 27th July, 2012 duly signed by its director Mr. E. Venkatram Reddy on behalf of. R1-company and Mr. Ramakrishna P Shenoy on behalf of petitioner-company the petitioner-company appointed a company secretary to upload the Form 8 together with the documents required under the provisions of the Act on the official website of the MCA. However, the same could not be uploaded at the pre-scrutiny stage itself. On making enquiries by the petitioner-company it was found that the director whose digital signature was appended to Form 8 could not be uploaded for registration of charge on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT