'Impossible To Navigate Through Applications': Delhi HC Asks Registry To Issue Practice Directions For Maintaining Records Of Company Matters
The directions should be put up to the Company Judge for approval, the Court said.
The Delhi High Court has recently directed it's Registry to take steps for ensuring that separate record of pending as well as disposed of applications in company matters is maintained in order to save Court's time. Justice C Hari Shankar, while dealing with a company matter, expressed his concern over the fact that that applications and order sheets in such cases run into several volumes...
The Delhi High Court has recently directed it's Registry to take steps for ensuring that separate record of pending as well as disposed of applications in company matters is maintained in order to save Court's time.
Justice C Hari Shankar, while dealing with a company matter, expressed his concern over the fact that that applications and order sheets in such cases run into several volumes and that the Applications which are disposed of long back and no longer survive for consideration were being shown on the electronic files making it an impossible task to navigate through the applications.
"In the opinion of this Court, one solution to this problem- which otherwise will become insurmountable – is that all applications which stand disposed of should be placed in a separate folder and only those applications should be reflected in the main folder which are still pending. The Registry is directed to take steps as expeditiously as possible to do this, so that Court time is not wasted unnecessarily," the Court said.
The Court also noted that when a response to an application is filed with an application for condonation of delay, it is categorized in a separate folder and the Court is unaware that a response was filed at the first place.
"The consequence is that hours are spent by the Court, in navigating through the company list though often times, the issues involved are very short and elementary. This takes up precious Court time, at the cost of other important matters which languish in the process," it added.
Furthermore, the Court said that at times, there were multiple applications by various parties who are often interested in the same property. However, since all the applications were placed in separate folders, they are listed on different dates, and therefore there is always a possibility of the Court passing an order to the prejudice of a party who was unheard.
"The Registry is directed to take note of the aforesaid and issue appropriate practice directions, which should be put up to the Company Judge for approval," the Court directed.
Case Title: ASSETS CARE & RECONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE LTD. v. M/S CREW B.O.S PRODUCTS LTD