9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of free transferability vs. refusal to split shares into different names under Article 24 of the Articles of Association of the Company, application of section 22A of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 in relation to hindrance of free transferability, consideration of marketable lot concept in share transactions, and the impact of standard listing agreements on share transfers. Detailed Analysis: The judgment revolves around the distinction between free transferability and refusal to split shares into different names as per Article 24 of the Company's Articles of Association. The Court found that the Company Law Board failed to grasp this crucial difference, leading to the appeal being allowed. The case involved a request to transfer one equity share each from a lot of 5 shares purchased from the market, stemming from a reverse merger scenario where a profit-making company merged with a loss-making one, resulting in a reduction of share capital in a specific ratio. The Court delved into the specifics of the merger, emphasizing the transformation of 50 shares of the merging company into 5 shares of the merged entity. The appellant sought to split this lot of 5 shares into individual certificates for different holders, triggering a reference to Article 24 of the Company's Articles of Association, which prohibited splitting shares for less than a marketable lot of 50 shares unless for creating a marketable lot. The refusal was based on this provision, not on transferring the shares to specified names, which the Company was willing to entertain. Section 22A of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 was invoked by the Company Law Board, but the Court clarified that this section applies when there is a hindrance to free transferability, which was not the case here. The respondent highlighted relevant provisions of the Companies Act and the standard listing agreement, acknowledging restrictions related to marketable units of shares, a critical aspect in share transactions. The judgment underscored that the refusal was solely for splitting shares, not for transferring them, aligning with the provisions of section 22A. The Court emphasized the importance of the marketable lot concept and the conditions of listing agreements in share transfers. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Company Law Board's order and granting the respondent the opportunity to request the transfer of the shares to specified names within a specified timeframe.
|
