2013 (2) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d informed that copies of the documents had been provided free of costs to the petitioner. However, the petitioner submitted that the documents would show that the files had not been numbered and that the documents were not certified as being true copies by the respondent. On 28.02.2012, the order records that the respondent provided copies of complete files maintained in relation to the three companies with which the petitioner was concerned. It also records the direction of the court that the petitioner should identify the documents of which he wants certified copies and apply under the Companies Act, 1956 for obtaining the certified copies thereof. On such application being made, the certified copies were to be made available to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Standing counsel on 23.08.2012 at 4.00 p.m. in Chamber no.459, Delhi High Court. ii) The petitioner shall be given the time to inspect the documents contained in the ROC‟s file pertaining to the aforementioned company. iii) On the petitioner identifying the documents, of which he seeks authenticated copy, the same shall be supplied to him. The photocopies of the documents shall be authenticated by Mr.Atma Sah, Assistant Registrar. iv) In case the petitioner requires certified copies of the very same documents or other documents, he shall file the requisite application along with the necessary fee with the office of the ROC, and upon the same being done, certified copies shall be supplied to him." 5. The petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to a court order by the counsel and further alleges rude behavior of the advocate. He further makes a grievance that the orders passed on 16.08.2012 and 28.02.2012 were without the presence and knowledge of the petitioner and the learned single Judge in contempt proceedings should have awaited the result of the appointment scheduled for 28.08.2012. It is in view thereof that the petitioner claims to have filed the application for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. 7. On consideration of the material before us and the list of dates and events which is all that the petitioner appearing in person relied upon, we find no merit in the appeal. Learned single Judge made every endeavour to ensure that the documents are made availabl....