9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at paragraph 14 of the impugned judgement cannot be treated to be a finding with regard to the validity of the MOU reached between the parties on 16.4.2011. It is merely a premise view to decide the question whether shares stood transferred. Further, as admittedly the shares have not been transferred in favour of the appellants in accordance with law, i.e. no entry having made in the register of the company, we hold that the respondents/ petitioners continue to be shareholders till their shares are registered in the name of other persons. For the reasons aforesaid we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement dated 2.1.2017. However, we make it clear that the order passed by the Tribunal or by Appellate Tribunal will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order it is clear that the appellants who were contesting respondents before the Tribunal raised the question of maintainability of petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the respondents/petitioners are not the shareholders and, thereby, do not have the locus standi to file the petition. The said stand was taken by the appellants on the ground that one MOU was reached between the appellants and respondents (petitioners) on 16 th April, 2011 pursuant to which they have already accepted money and, therefore, shares stands transferred. From the impugned order we find that the Tribunal while discussing the stand taken by the parties on the question of transfer of shares made following obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bind the Petitioners although they have not signed on the MOU. This argument of learned counsel for respondents does not merit acceptance for the simple reason that definition given in any Enactment can be applied to the provisions in the Act or by analogy to other Acts but not to agreements between parties in violation of the Indian Contract Act. It is obvious that the definition of relative in Section 2(41) of Companies Act 1956 is applicable to Section 299 of Companies Act, 1956. From the aforesaid findings it will be clear that to decide the question whether the respondents/petitioners have ceased to be shareholders or not, the Tribunal has not refused to rely on the MOU on the ground that any agreement against the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
