Charge registration under Companies Act default jurisdiction fails where portal error, not company default, blocks filing.

Section 614 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies only where the company or its officers are in default of a statutory filing or registration duty after notice. On the stated facts, the company had authorised and executed the mortgage, guarantee and charge documents, and Form 8 had been signed. The registration problem arose at the MCA pre-scrutiny stage because the portal would not accept a director's digital signature for a reason unrelated to the company. That technical obstacle did not amount to a default by the respondent company or its officers, so the statutory jurisdiction could not be invoked against them or used to cure the portal-related difficulty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Company Law Board could direct the company and its officers to register the mortgage and charge under section 614 of the Companies Act, 1956 when the company had already authorised execution of the documents and the inability to upload Form 8 arose from the MCA portal not accepting the digital signature of a director for reasons unrelated to the respondent company.

Analysis: Section 614 contemplates a direction only where the company or its officers are in default in complying with a statutory filing or registration requirement after notice. The record showed that the respondent company had authorised execution of the guarantee and mortgage documents, had executed the necessary instruments, and had signed Form 8 for charge registration. The difficulty arose at the pre-scrutiny stage because the MCA system did not accept the director's digital signature, allegedly due to his being a director of another defaulting company. That circumstance did not establish a default by the respondent company or its officers. Since the statutory jurisdiction under section 614 is confined to directing the company and its officers in default, no direction could be issued against any other person or to cure a technical obstacle not attributable to the respondent company.

Conclusion: The petition under section 614 was not maintainable on the facts and was rejected for want of default by the respondent company.

---