Company Petition No. 81 of 2011. Case: The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. (RBS) Vs Caohe Technologies Private Ltd.. Company Law Board
| Case Number | Company Petition No. 81 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Shweta S. Sharma, Advocate |
| Judges | Kanthi Narahari, Member (J) |
| Issue | Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 125, 234(1), 614 |
| Judgement Date | August 08, 2011 |
| Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
Kanthi Narahari, Member (J), (Western Bench At Mumbai)
-
The present petition is filed by invoking various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking direction to the respondent company to file Form No. 8 with the ROC, Pune. Ms. Shweta S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 38 lacs with 7% interest p.a. as loan on 29 June, 2005, to the respondent company. The said loan was sanctioned for a period of 180 months with 180 installments each consisting Rs. 34,156. The petitioner bank was required to create security by way of mortgage of respondent company's immovable property. Accordingly, the respondent company created a mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds of immovable property. In pursuance of aforesaid mortgage, the 'memorandum of entry first time mortgage' by deposit of title deeds dated 29 June, 2005, was executed between the petitioner and the respondent and was countersigned by the respondent through its directors, Mr. Suresh Shankar Joshi and Mrs. Rohini Suresh Joshi. By way of compliances required to be statutorily followed by the respondent company under section 125 of the Act, the respondent was required to file Form No. 8 notifying the ROC, Pune, the particulars of charge created by the respondent company within a period of thirty days. The said condition was also incorporated in the loan agreement at clause 3.3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been time and again reminding the respondent company through its directors to comply with the aforesaid compliances. The respondent company gave false assurances that it will provide the certificate of registration but till date nothing has been provided. The petitioner states that the respondent has not filed form 8 with the ROC within the period prescribed under law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings/documents. None appeared for the respondent company. The petitioner had produced copy of the fax dated 8.6.2011 addressed to the petitioner bank wherein it is stated that the copy of the loan agreement and other relevant documents have not been given to the respondent company in order to register charge under section 125 of the Companies Act. It is further stated that in absence of basic documents required for registration of charge the company was unable to take any required action for the reasons beyond the control of management. This bench by its order dated 25...
To continue reading
Request your trial