<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (7) TMI 142 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249105</link>
    <description>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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 142 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249105</link>
      <description>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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>