https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97616 Section 120 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was construed as protecting only persons with rights in the charged property, so an unsecured creditor had no locus standi to seek revocation of an order extending time for registration of a charge. The provision was also held not to apply to charges governed by section 109A, because its language was confined to delay under section 109 and could not be enlarged by implication. The ex parte extension order was treated as an irregular exercise of jurisdiction, making it voidable rather than a nullity; revocation could therefore be sought only by a person with an interest in the subject-matter. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:48:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97616 Section 120 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was construed as protecting only persons with rights in the charged property, so an unsecured creditor had no locus standi to seek revocation of an order extending time for registration of a charge. The provision was also held not to apply to charges governed by section 109A, because its language was confined to delay under section 109 and could not be enlarged by implication. The ex parte extension order was treated as an irregular exercise of jurisdiction, making it voidable rather than a nullity; revocation could therefore be sought only by a person with an interest in the subject-matter. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97616