PARMANENT HOUSES (HOLDINGS) LTD. 1988 BCLC 563(CH D)
In a case where a debenture creating a charge in favor of a lending bank mentioned that the charge shall crystallized on happening of an event or default in payment and when the payment was not made on demand by bank , it was held that the charge was no longer a floating charge at the time when receiver was appointed.
ANTIFRICTION BEARING CORPORATION LTD V. STATE OF MAHARASTRA (1999) 20 SCL, 373 (Bom)
Charges were held to be void against the liquidator or creditor unless registered. Court observed that filing of copy of document of charge with Registrar is not the formality but a definite legal requirement and that non-filing creates a certain legal impediments. Court also observed that where the company executed the debenture trust deed in Gujrat and was duly registered after paying stamp duty and where company wanted to issue debentures in Mumbai, company’s registered office being in Mumbai, Company was asked to pay stamp duty a prescribed on Maharashtra State.
WATSON & CO. V. SPIRAL GLOBE CO, (1902) 2 CH 209.
It has been held that the date of execution of a charge is the date of creation for the purpose of computing the time as laid down in section 125, although it may take effect on a future date or on the happening of a future event.
T.R.TYAGARAJAN V. OFFICAIL LIQUIDATOR (1960) 30 COMP CAS 481(MAD).
It was held where a company acquires property subject to charge and fails to deliver particulars of charge to the Registrar of registration the validity of the charge is not affected.
DUBLIN CITY DISTILLERY LTD. V. DOHERTY (1914) AC 823
It was held that it is the date of execution of debenture which brings the Pari Passu charge into existence. This date relevant for the purpose of reckoning the period of thirty days mentioned in section 125 and for the purpose of this section
BANARAS BANK LTD V. BANK OF BIHAR (1947) AIR ALL 117
It was held that the validity of charge does not depend upon the date on which the Registrar chooses to enter it into the register.
EXETER TRUST LTD V. SCREEN WAYS LTD (1991) BCLC 888
It was held that a certificate for registration of a charge is conclusive evidence that the relevant registration requirements have been satisfied despite the registration was affected and the certificate was also issued in reliance of an order extending the time for registration.
This was later set aside in
ROC V. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (1986) 1 ALL ER 105 (CA).
It was held that judicial revive of the Registrar’s Issuing a certificate of registration was not available, Save in cases of fraud.
ALCOCK ASHDOWN & CO. LTD.
In this case the court receiver was appointed by High Court on 26th Feb, 1972 and he took possession of the property in May, 1992. When asked by Registrar of the Companies, that a notice of appointment of receiver should be filed with him under section 137, the petitioning creditor (Bank of Maharashtra) did so under protest, their solicitors contending that the provisions of section 137 are not applicable to a company in liquidation.
It is clarified that sections 147 & 421 are applicable to all receivers whether appointed by the debenture holder the terms of the debenture deed or by the court. The section does not exclude receivers appointed in respect of assts of the companies in liquidation. However since receiver appointed by the court have to render periodic account to court, there may be no difficulty for the receivers to furnish a copy of such accounts to the Registrar of Companies under section 421.(Circular No. 16/76, dated 28th June 1976).
TIMES BANK LIMITED V. SRI SHARDA PARAMESHWARI TEXTILE LTD (2000) 38 CLA 270.
It was held that Company Law Board is not empowered to go into the validity of a charge and cannot declare charge null and void and delete the same from register of charges. There is no reference in section 141 to the Company Law Board being satisfied as to the validity of a charge.
can anyone help me find all corporate law cases of year 1999
CAclubindia
