9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17, 1992, along with a transfer instrument dated July 17, 1991, in respect of the transfer of the said shares in question. The matter was considered by this Board (CLB) which vide order dated May 8, 1992, dismissed the petitioner's petition/appeal. Instead of filing an appeal against the said order the petitioner permitted the same to become final and filed criminal cases against the respondent-company and also various applications under different provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.) alleging mainly that the respondent-company has filed a fictitious affidavit and resorted to forgery by filing a fabricated transfer deed. From the material which is available before us we find that the police have been investigating the matters and filing reports from time to time before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 38 Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay. On October 29, 1999, the petitioner wrote a letter addressed to the Chairman, Company Law Board, inter alia, praying to institute legal proceedings against the respondent-company for filing the fictitious affidavit dated February 17, 1992, and also for supplying certified true copy of the forged transfer instruments without having the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The petitioner sent a letter dated April 29, 2002, to the Bench Officer of this Board stating, inter alia, that the reply filed by the respondent-company was belated as it was not filed by April 23, 2002, and hence, cannot be taken into consideration. However, if the same is taken into consideration, the petitioner be permitted to file a rejoinder. It was further stated that as the affidavit dated February 17, 1992, has been revealed to be fictitious in the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner, this Board will proceed to lodge a complaint before the appropriate forum in respect thereof. On April 15, 2002, a notice was sent by registered post to the parties fixing May 6, 2002, for the hearing of the application. On the said date neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present, the respondent-company was, however, represented by its company secretary as well as counsel. As this Board did not want to proceed in the absence of the petitioner and wanted to ensure that the time-limit fixed by the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated March 28, 2002, was complied with, it fixed May 8, 2002, for hearing and got the notice served on the petitioner and his counsel by sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner has in his letters addressed to this Board and other authorities not only made allegations against the then Chairman of the Board but has also made allegations against his own counsel, the investigating agency as well as the learned magistrate and imputed motives to them. It has been further submitted that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its order dated March 28, 2002, had only directed this Board to consider the letter/application dated October 29, 1999, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to expand the scope by introducing letters dated April 24, 2002, April 29, 2002 and May 8, 2002, and raising other matters beyond the scope of the proceedings. 6. We have heard the parties at some length and have also perused the record of this case. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the letter dated October 28, 1999, was not in the required format of an application as per Form No. 2 of regulation 17 of Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, which requires that the application shall be verified with an affidavit in the manner laid down in regulation 14. Besides, the Company Law Board (Fees on Application and Petition) Rules, 1991, prescribes that ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the petition under Section 111 of the Act was being heard. Despite the petitioner's objection, this Board had considered and rejected the petitioner's petition on the merits. The said order was not challenged in appeal and the order has become final. Similarly, in the various criminal proceedings which the petitioner initiated and also in the criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court, these points were repeatedly raised but from no authority or from any court has the petitioner been able to get any order or any categorical finding that the stand taken by the respondent-company was knowingly false or that any fabrication was done by the respondent-company or any transfer instrument was tampered with. The petitioner has failed to show us any categorical finding by the metropolitan magistrate trying the criminal proceedings or the investigating agency to substantiate the allegation made by the petitioner. The petitioner has invited the attention of the Board to a report of the inspector investigating the complaint made by the petitioner dated October 4, 1999. We have perused the same but do not find any categorical finding to the said effect. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed relating towards the said share certificate or any incriminating document pertaining to the said share certificate was not found," 10. It is obvious, therefore, that even in the criminal proceedings it has not been substantiated that the respondent had filed a fictitious affidavit or had fabricated the transfer deeds. 11. The Company Law Board while exercising its power under Section 111 of the Act has mainly to see whether the refusal to register the name of the transferee in members share register was refused by the company for sufficient cause. It cannot act as an investigation authority to investigate the allegation raised on the affidavit dated February 17, 1992, filed by the respondent-company or to investigate whether the signatures of the transferor and the transferee on the transfer deed are forged or fabricated. The same cannot be determined in summary proceedings before the Company Law Board. In this view of the matter, we are unable to hold on the basis of the material on record before us that the affidavit dated February 17, 1992, was a false and fictitious affidavit or to come to the finding that the transfer instruments were forged. Therefore, the prayer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
