Pakistan Case Law← Search
1989 MLD 555

Messrs INDUSTRIAL PACKAGES (PVT.) LTD. vs THE JOINT REGISTRAR, JOINT

Citation1989 MLD 555
CourtSindh High Court
Judge(s)Syed Haider Ali Pirzada
ResultPetition allowed

1. This is a petition under section 131 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, for condoning the delay and extension of time for registration of charge on the assets of the petitioner.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that on 5-9-1988 a Trust Deed was executed and registered before the Sub- Registrar, Kotri, between the petitioner and United Bank Ltd., creating a first mortgage and a first floating charge on all the present and future movable and immovable properties and assets of the petitioner company to secure the repayment purchase price of the investment property amounting to Rs. 23,69,773 and other dues, if any.

3. The petitioner-company did not file particulars of first mortgage and a first charge in the prescribed form 13 with the Joint Registrar of Joint Stock Companies within the period of twenty- one days allowed by law whereupon the petitioner filed the above petition for extension of time on 4-12-1988.

4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent.

5. The Deputy Registrar of Companies has Filed written statement and has stated therein that he has no objection, to the extension applied for by the petitioner-company but has submitted that the petitioner has failed to file said Trust Deed alongwith form 13 `within prescribed period of twenty- one days as such violated legal provision and is punishable under section 134 of the Ordinance. It is not in dispute that the Trust Decd was registered on 5-9-1988 and was received in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Joint Stock Companies on 4--10-1988. There was a delay of eight days. The reason for delay was explained in para. 2 of the petition. It is advantageous to reproduce paragraph 2 of the petition which reads:- "2. That' at that time due to disturbed law and order situation prevailing. In that area the Trust Deed in question was not received by the petitioner within 15 days from the Registration Authority, Kotri."

6. It was further stated in the/petition that the delay of eight days was merely accidental and not of the nature to prejudice the position of creditors or share-holders of the company, and was beyond the control of the petitioner.

7. Mr. A.K.M. Idrees, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay may be condoned.

8. It is advantageous to reproduce section 131 of the Ordinance which reads:-- "Section 131. Rectification of register of mortgages.--(1) The Court, on being satisfied that the omission to register a mortgage or charge within the time required by section 12, or that the omission or misstatement of any particular with respect to any such mortgage or charge, or the omission to give intimation to the registrar of the payment or satisfaction of a debt for which a charge or mortgage was created, was accidental or due to inadvertence or to some other sufficient cause, or is not of a nature to prejudice the position of creditors or share-holders of the company, or that on other grounds it is just and equitable to grant relief, may, on, the application of the company or any person interested and, on such terms and conditions as seem to the Court just and expedient, order that the time for registration be extended, or, as the case may be, that the omission or misstatement be rectified, and may make such order as to the costs of the application as it thinks fit."

9. It is clear that the Court is entitled to extend the time provided that the Court is satisfied namely, (1) the omission was accidental or due to inadvertence or to some other cause, (2) the omission is not of a nature to prejudice the position of creditors or share-holders of the company, and (3) on other ground, it is just and equitable to grant relief. These conditions cumulative because of the disjunctive `or'. The petitioner-company has explained the delay.

10. I think this is a case in which it must be held that the omission to register in time was due to inadvertisement or some other sufficient cause.

11. I, therefore, condone the delay. I allow the petition and make the order of extension of time under section 131, Companies Ordinance, 1984, as prayed. I make no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search