9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies Act, 1956 does not arise at all. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Even if it is assumed that the Petitioner has a right to file this petition, according to her the lodgement of shares along with the transfer deeds was made on 10.05.1998, legal notice was issued by her on 12.03.1999 calling upon RI company to transfer the shares in her favour, Civil Suit in O.S. No. 73 of 99 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy was filed on 16.09.1999 without impleading R2 herein in whose name all 700 shares were already transferred, subsequently many of those 550 shares were dematerialised and sold to third parties by R2, the said Civil suit was dismissed, thereafter this Petitioner has filed this petition only on 10.08.2011 i.e. after a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr. Murali, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Zubin Behram Kamdin, Adv. i/b Mr. Gandhar Raikar, Adv. ORDER Per V. Nallasenapathy, Member (Technical) 1. The Petitioner filed this Company Petition u/s. 11 IA of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking the following reliefs; (a) To declare the transfer of shares mentioned in schedule 1 in favour of the second respondent or any party is illegal and void. (b) To direct the first respondent to enter the name of the petitioner by rectifying the Register of members by deleting the name of the second respondent or any person in respect of the shares mentioned in schedule 1. (c) To direct the first respondent to pay the dividend to the petitioner in respect of the shares mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the exparte decree passed in OS No. 73 of 1999 and the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the SLP NO. 5184 of 2007 filed by the petitioner against the order of High Court of Andhra Pradesh setting aside the exparte decree. Finally on 8.3.2011, the suit bearing number OS No. 73 of 1999 filed by the petitioner herein was rejected under Order VII Rule Il(d) of CPC with an observation that the proper forum for the petitioner to approach is Company Law Board under Section 11 IA of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. The petitioner further submits that the transfer deeds along with the original share certificates were lodged in time and RI company ought to have transferred the shares in her favour. It was further alleged that RI company fraudule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eems to be genuine and accordingly the shares were transferred in his name by RI company. RI company went on comparing the documents submitted by R2 with that of the Xerox copies of the documents submitted by the petitioner before this tribunal and claimed that the documents submitted by the petitioner are not genuine and actually forged. In view of this, RI further stated that it is imperative that the signatories to the transfer forms may be summoned for examination to ascertain the truth. (f) RI company received request from R2 on 8.6.98 for transfer of 1,450 shares duly purchased from 3 set of transferors under three separate folios accompanied with 29 separate but clubbed shares transfer deeds which were duly stamped and executed, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer deeds along with original share certificates were delivered to the Company. The petitioner has produced only a copy of the receipt dated 30.05.1998 issued by Sanchar Courjers in support of her claim that the transfer deeds were sent to RI Company. There is no proof that the said courier delivered the consignment to RI Company. RI company in its reply categorically stated that no share transfer forms along with original share certificates for 700 shares were lodged with the company. It was further stated that the petitioner has not produced any signed acknowledgement from the company reflecting lodgement of transfer deeds along with original share certificates with RI company. 8. Further, RI alleged that the Xerox copies of share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 16.09.1999 without impleading R2 herein in whose name all 700 shares were already transferred, subsequently many of those 550 shares were dematerialised and sold to third parties by R2, the said Civil suit was dismissed, thereafter this Petitioner has filed this petition only on 10.08.2011 i.e. after a period of 13 years of lodgement of shares, Whereas under Section 11 IA, the petition has to be filed within a period of 60 days of lodgement of transfer documents, at this point of time much water has flown under the bridge, hence this Tribunal could not come to the rescue of the Petitioner. The petition is not only barred by limitation but also suffers from delay and laches. Of course, the Petitioner may say that she had been diligently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
