9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the appellant-petitioner claims that his father had transferred the shares to him in the year 2001. The CLB while dismissing the appellant s petition has observed as under: - 12. Considering the facts of this case it is noted that no case has been made out under Section 112 of the Act, the Petitioner s claim is untenable, as the Managing Director, who is said to have colluded with the Petitioner and his father (Sh. H.K. Chadha who also was the Statutory Auditor of the Respondent Company), cannot be said to be the person issuing certificated instrument and having been authorized to issue such so, called instrument of transfer on the Company s behalf. The Petitioner s claim of deemed certification fails and the case of the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Naveen Chawla, learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures and has not dealt with the documents relied upon by the appellant namely, Share Certificate executed by the then Managing Director of the respondent company, the Share Transfer Form duly signed by the Company Secretary at page 44 of the paper book and list of shareholders prepared by the Account Officer of the respondent company at page 139 of the paper book. Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for appellant also points out that the original Share Transfer Register had not been produced by the respondent company during the proceedings before the CLB. Mr. Chawla lastly states that the respondent company s first response vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove transfer documents. Mr. Agarwal, points out that in the contemporaneous shareholder s list filed with the Registrar of Companies, it is the appellant- petitioner s father who has been shown as the shareholder. During the course of arguments, Mr. Agarwal, pointed out number of discrepancies in the Share Transfer Form as well as the Share Certificate referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for appellant. He submits that the collusion and conspiracy between the previous management of the respondent company and the appellant s father would be apparent from the fact that the Share Transfer Form is in the possession of the appellant- petitioner and not the respondent company. Having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
