9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Even though the appellant was neither the transferor nor the transferee, still being an aggrieved person because of the action of the respondent, his appeal was maintain-able under the provision of sub-section (2) of section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). 2. In order to appreciate the points raised, let us have quick glance to the facts of this case. The appellant herein had sold 100 shares to one Shri Kanwarpal Singh. Shares were delivered along with the transfer deed on which the appellant put his signatures witnessing the execution. The said Kanwarpal Singh lodged the shares with the registrar as well as with the transfer agents for the registration of transfer of the said shares in his name. No reply was received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case may be, may appeal to the Company Law Board against any refusal of the company to register the transfer or transmission, or against any failure on its part within the period referred to in sub-section (1), either to register the transfer or transmis- sion or to send notice of its refusal to register the same. 4. Relying on the above provision, the appellant contends that the appeal ought to have been accepted by the Board because even if the appellant was not a transferor or a transferee, still being an aggrieved person his appeal was maintainable. He was the one who sold the shares to Shri Kanwarpal Singh on behalf of the transferor, i.e., Smt. and Shri Suresh G. Thakkar. Therefore, in the absence of transferor or transferee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer of shares, which relief was not sought by the appellant. In fact no legal infirmity has been pointed in the approach of the Board in the impugned order. Having failed to make out any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Board, the appeal would not lie to the High Court. Section 10F which is reproduced as under provides: " Appeals against the orders of the Company Law Board Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order : Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was preven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, by no stretch of imagination appellant can be called an aggrieved person. He never claimed substantial relief before the Board nor this appeal showed any cause of action arising under section 111(2). This appeal does not raise any question of law by a person aggrieved by the order of the Board. He being neither transferor nor transferee can be called the person aggrieved. 8. Even otherwise, this appeal is barred by time. The appellant ought to have filed the appeal within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or the order of the Board. The impugned order is dated 6-3-1997 whereas the appeal was filed on 17-5-1997, i.e., beyond the period of sixty days. No explanation has been given for this delay. In fact no a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
