TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ometime in 1995 and no share certificates had been issued to him. However, it had come to his knowledge that his name in respect of these 40,000 shares had been deleted from the register of members and the name of the second respondent had been entered therein. According to the petitioner, he never executed any transfer instrument nor he had received any consideration for the same. Since the share certificates had not been issued, the managing director of the company Shri V.N. Mohan, being the brother of the second respondent who is also a director of the company had manoeuvred to alter the register of members perhaps by execution of forged transfer deeds as if signed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for rectification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther pointed out that at no time, the Company had issued and delivered share certificates in respect of the 40,000 shares. The petitioner never executed any transfer instruments in favour of the second respondent nor has he received any consideration for the shares. Therefore, if the company relies on any instrument of transfer signed by the petitioner, the same is a forged one and not binding on the petitioner. He further submitted that whether the alleged transfer instrument complies with the provisions of Section 108 of the Act in all respect can be seen only when the instrument of transfer is produced. But in spite of the demand of the petitioner for production of the transfer deed, the respondents have refused to produce the same on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andi to file this petition. Further since the transfer had taken place as early as in 1997, the petition should have been filed within the period of two months and since it has not been done so the petition is time barred. He submitted that at the time of settlement of his dues when he parted ways with the company in 1997, on valuable consideration, the petitioner transferred these shares to the second respondent by executing proper instrument of transfer and the company has acted on that instrument. Further, the allegation that no such share certificate had been issued is also wrong inasmuch as the petitioner himself was a director for five long years after the allotment of shares and at no time he had complained of non-issue/delivery of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame is forged one. Therefore, to determine the right of the petitioner to get into the register of members, we have to give a finding as to whether the signature appearing in the instrument of transfer is that of the petitioner or not. In other words, we have to give a finding whether the signature is a forged one as claimed by the petitioner. We have seen the original instrument of transfer and we are not in a position to categorically come to the conclusion as to whether it is the genuine signature of the petitioner or a forged one. In a summary proceedings under Section 111A it is not possible for us to make any roving enquiry into this matter. Since the criminal court is already seized of the matter, taking into consideration the undert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
