9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar Jain, the petitioner, alleges that he is the holder of four hundred A class shares of rupees one hundred each and 7,450 B class shares of rupees ten each in the company since 30th December, 1948. The petitioner urges that he repeatedly requested Sri Mitter Sain Jain, who is the works manager of the company, to allow him to inspect the share register as he suspected that some interpolation had been made therein. The inspection was not granted. Ultimately the petitioner came to know in December, 1963, from the office of the Registrar of Companies at Kanpur that in the annual return filed by the company on 30th December, 1950, before the Registrar, the petitioner was shown as holding no shares of A class and holding only 550 B class share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on September 9, 1950, at which the transfer of shares by the petitioner to respondents Nos. 2 to 6 was approved. It is also suggested that the petitioner was in active management of the company till 1956 and he had access to the books of the company. The allegation that he did not know of the transfers of the shares in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 6 till December, 1963, is characterized as false. It is stated that the petitioner knew of the transfer in December, 1950, as he attended the meeting of the board of directors held on September 9, 1950. The following issues have been framed : "1. Whether in the year 1950 the petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Jain, transferred 400 A class shares and 6,900 B class shares to his mother, brother and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bers, or between members or alleged members on the one hand and the company on the other hand. It is well settled that section 155 confers a jurisdiction of a summary nature and that it contemplates a relief which is available at common law as well. The primary remedy is the remedy under the general law. The remedy under the Companies Act is a summary remedy. The object of this provision is not to supersede or oust the remedy at common law. As observed by Shah J. in Manilal Gangaram Sindore v. Western India Theatres Ltd. [1963] 33 Comp Cas 826 , 828 : " ...this procedure is resorted to by persons aggrieved by the refusal of the directors of a company to rectify the register and enter the name of the transferee in place of the name o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l v. Jagatjil Distilling and Allied Industries Ltd. [1952] 22 Comp. Cas. 343 and Mohamed Athar v. Narsingh Das AIR 1953 Hyd. 127. In In re Dhelakhat Tea Co. Ltd. [1958] 28 Comp. Cas. 62, 66; AIR 1957 Cal. 476, P. B. Mukharji J. held : " ...disputed questions of fact should not be tried in a summary procedure in an application for rectification of the share register under section 155 because they are more appropriate subjects for a trial in a suit on evidence after a full discovery of documents and inspection." I have indicated above that several disputed questions of fact require determination in this case. The petitioner's title to the shares is itself seriously disputed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
