9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny locus standi, the petitioner has abused the process of law - respondent No. 1 is not empowered to decide this issue of succession under the law and is bound to rely upon the succession certificate issued by a competent authority designated for this purpose From the perusal of documents filed by the petitioner along with the petition it is seen that he addressed letters dated February 15, 2010, February 17, 2010 and July 12, 2010 to the company requesting transmission of shares on the ground that he is the only legal heir of deceased shareholder - The said fact has been concealed by the petitioner and tried to obtain the orders from this Bench keeping in the dark, and this Bench presumes that the said act is with a mala fide intention a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Falia, Gopipura, Surat-395 001. Respondent No. 1 by its letter dated September 24, 2010 addressed to the petitioner replied that application for transmission of shares sent by the petitioner was perused and the same was found to be unacceptable as it was not supported by required documents. Apprehending such vague reply, the petitioner obtained the succession certificate under the provisions of section 29 of the Administrators General Act, 1963 (45 of 1963) from the Deputy Administrator General, Surat Region and submitted the same along with the request for transmission of the said 150 equity shares held in the name of his mother Asha Jhaveri. The petitioner is kept completely in the dark as to the status of the company, position of fixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as this would be almost 6.81 per cent. shareholding out of the total 2,200 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. In the circumstances, he requested that 150 equity shares held by his late mother be transmitted in his favour and register of member of respondent No. 1 be rectified accordingly. 5. Respondent No. 2 filed reply to the petition. It is stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. The petitioner has claimed to be the legal representative of the deceased shareholder of the company and the petition is filed in that capacity. The Deputy Administrator General, Surat has restrained the certificate issued by him earlier to the petitioner vide its order bearing No. 30 of 2010 and hence the petition filed by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and hence respondent No. 1 cannot effect any transmission of shares. Respondent No. 1 being a separate legal entity has to follow certain procedures and is bound by the law of the land. Respondent No. 1 is not empowered to decide the issue of the legal heir under the law. In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision in the matter of Haryana Electro Steel Ltd. v. Haryana Financial Corpn. [2001] 103 Comp Cas 1017/31 SCL 298 (Punj. Har.), wherein it was held that : "if a person has no locus standi, he does not have the authority to challenge an action". 6. It is further stated that the affidavit accompanying the petition is not a proper affidavit as stipulated under the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough their representatives, the matter was posted on August 4, 2011 at 2.30 p.m. On that day the authorised representative of the second respondent vide his letter dated July 29, 2011 sought adjournment. In view of the request, the matter was adjourned to November 15, 2011. On November 15, 2011 none appeared for the respondents and the matter was adjourned to January 18, 2012 and the Bench sent notices to the parties by letter dated November 17, 2011 intimating the date and time of hearing. As per the schedule, the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the respondents. However, the second respondent vide his letter dated January 12, 2012 which was received by this Bench on January 16, 2012 wherein it was stated that the plead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Administrator General, Surat Region, Surat under the provisions of section 29 of the Administrator's General Act, 1963. Admittedly the petitioner has not produced any other documents in support of his claim to the shares of late Mrs. Asha Jhaveri. From the perusal of the reply filed by the second respondent dated April 4, 2011 wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition on the ground that the certificate issued by the Deputy Administrator General, Surat has restrained the said certificate vide its order bearing outward No. 30 of 2010 and as such there is no existence of any certificate in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner do not have any right to claim the shares of late Mrs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
