9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second holder and member of 36 equity shares out of 72 equity shares of the respondent company. Petitioner No. 3 is the real brother of petitioner No. 1, son of petitioner No. 2 and late Mr. Mukundbhai Saheba. Petitioner No. 3 is second holder of equity shares consisting of total 36 equity shares. Petitioner No. 4 is wife of petitioner No. 3. Petitioner No. 3 was the first holder of second lot of total 36 equity shares of the respondent company along with joint name of petitioner No. 4. Petitioner No. 1 and 3 after following due process of law, got succession certificate from Hon'ble City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in respect of equity shares of the respondent company held by late Mukundbhai Saheba. Late Mukundbhai Saheba along with peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s came to be issued. On the request of the original owners of the equity shares, bonus shares were issued in the name of petitioners 3 and 4, i.e., son and daughter in law of original owners. 5. In the year 1996, one unscrupulous broker Aniket Anantrai Shah residing in Ahmedabad had induced late Mr. Mukundbhai Saheba to sell equity shares of the respondent company for valuable consideration. Said Aniket Anantrai Shah tried to convince late Mukundbhai Saheba and petitioners 2 to 4 to sign and execute the transfer forms after illegally obtaining share certificates of the respondent company from the deceased Mukundbhai Saheba and petitioners 2 to 4 but deceased Mukundbhai Saheba and petitioners 2 to 4 did not agree to execute the transfer for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in its communication dated 21st March, 2005 addressed to deceased Mukundbhai Saheba stated that the signatures of the transferees are different/not tallying with the specimen signature recorded in the company. Said communication was in fact addressed to the alleged transferee in respect of 11 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 58032153 to 163. Respondent company is aware of the fact that, Mukundbhai Saheba who sold out 36 equity shares of the company expired on 11.03.2001 through the communication made by petitioner 1 and 3. Respondent company is also aware of the fact that the alleged false transfer deed came to be lodged in the year 2004 forging signature of the deceased who already expired in the year 2001 but still the respondent company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent company. Respondent company subsequently issued two lots of bonus shares i.e. 25 and 11 equity shares. The bonus shares were registered in the name of petitioners 3 and 4. 12. That means, late Mukundbhai Saheba and petitioner 2 were having 36 equity shares in two lots whereas petitioners 3 and 4 were also having 36 bonus shares in two lots. 13. Mukundhhai Saheba died on 11.03.2001 as per Certificate of Death filed along with petition. 14. As can be seen from the order in Civil Misc. Application No. 297 of 2004 filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad it appears that petitioners 1 and 3 have filed petition for succession certificate. In annexure to the said order, under item No.22 number of shares held of Grasim Industries Ltd. are s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dra Sankalchand Gandhi for transfer of 11 equity shares on the basis of transfer deed dated 05.11.2004 said to have been signed by deceased Mukundbhai Saheba and second petitioner, the respondent company itself refused to transfer shares in the name of Jitendra Sankalchand Gandhi on the ground that the signatures of transferees i.e. Mukundbhai Saheba and Indiraben Saheba (2nd petitioner) are different/not tallying with the specimen signatures recorded with the company. As can be seen from the letter dated 21.3.2005 addressed to Jitendra Sankalchand Gandhi the company has clearly asked Jitendra Sankalchand Gandhi to approach Mukundbhai Saheba or join party in civil suit 3567 of 1996 in the Civil Court of Ahmedabad. From the last corresponden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansmission of shares. Therefore, Articles 113 and 137 of Limitation Act provides for three years' limitation from the date on the right to sue accrue. 19. In the case on hand, the right to sue the respondent company is 11.06.2012 on which date respondent company wrote a letter to the first petitioner. This petition was filed on 22nd October, 2013. Therefore, this petition is within time and it is not barred by limitation. 20. In view of the above discussions, there shall be direction to the respondent company for transmission of first batch of 36 shares in the name of the petitioners 1 and 3 and second batch of 36 shares in the name of petitioners 3 and 4. 21. Among the 36 shares that are ordered to be transmitted in favour of petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
