9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objector. According to the petitioner, the objector has no locus standi to present any objection to the scheme of amalgamation because the objector has no interest in the petitioner-company. According to the petitioner, the objector was holding 840 shares in the petitioner-company. Out of these 840 shares, on January 8, 1993, he transferred 800 shares and on January 9, 1995, he transferred balance 40 shares and therefore, he does not have any interest in the company and, therefore, he is not entitled to file and maintain the objections. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on January 8, 1993, 800 shares were transferred by the objector, the sale price of the shares was paid to the objector by cheque. This cheque was deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this petition that he was not functioning as a director of this company or that he had delegated any of his functions as director to anybody else. Therefore, in my opinion, it is hard to believe that when according to the objector himself, he was a 50 per cent, holder of shares and was also a director of the company, he will not receive the share certificates when he himself is managing the affairs of the company. It is pertinent to note here that at no point of time, a statement has been made on oath before this court that the objector was not taking part in the management of the company. In so far as the case of the petitioner-company is concerned, the objector was holding 840 shares in the company which were transferred by him in two i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed in 1997. When according to the company the shares have been transferred in 1993 and 1995, what actions were taken in this regard by the objector before filing the complaint is not explained by the objector. The books of the company are kept in regular course of business and therefore, the entries are to be presumed to be correct unless proved otherwise. The objector has not placed any material on record to dispel the presumption. The statements made in the affidavit are vague and lack details. It is further to be seen that the Companies Act creates remedies for restoration of the shares to the person whose shares have been illegally transferred. According to the record of the company, the objector does not hold any share in the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
