respondent after a delay of eight months and 27 days.
(iv) The ROC has no authority to condone the delay of eight months ... General Rules and
Forms, 1956.
(vi) The ROC has not collected any filing fee, while accepting revised Forms Nos. 8 and 13 filed
petitioner, has submitted that the delay in filing with the ROC, West Bengal, in the prescribed Form Nos. 8 and 13, the particulars of charge ... recover from the company the amount of any fees paid by him to the ROC on the registration. The petitioner has complied with the requirements
have, therefore, called for the particulars from the ROC, Andhra Pradesh. The ROC has forwarded to this Bench, copies of the annual returns ... Form No. 2 was filed before the ROC with necessary fees on March 26, 1993. This is evidenced from a copy of the receipt issued
submitting the documents with ROC when admittedly First petitioner was in management, due to constraints of staff and late fees had to be paid
Mausumi Bhattacharjee vs Anghaila Housing Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Sudhir ... on 25 May, 2004
ORDER
K
filing fees of Registrar of Companies for the year 31.3.2000 and 31.3.2001 of Rs. 9,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively; Memorandum of Fees ... petitioner in view of the fact that the documents furnished to the ROC's in the chronological order are contemporaneous record and the true
Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) ... vs Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. And Ors. on 31 January, 2007
Equivalent citations
notes to accounts to effect that 'As the prescribed fee to increase the Authorised Capital has been paid during April 2004, the Authorised Capital ... dated 18.05.2004 disclosing the allotment of shares was filed with ROC on 21.05.2004, consideration for the shares remained unpaid till 22.05.2004. The second respondent admittedly
Mr. M. Murali Krishna, Mr. M.K. Azad And ... vs Rdf Power Projects Limited, Mr
Satish Chandra Sanwalka vs Tinplate Dealers Association (P.) Ltd. on 1 March, 2001
Equivalent citations
