Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2008 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (7) TMI 569 - HC - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - Whether the nomination is required to be attested by witnesses? -challenging the allotment of additional 3000 shares and declaring that respondent No. 1 is the holder of 98 per cent of the shareholding which came to him by virtue of the Will of late Sh. V.P. Punj Held that:- The ‘Will’ set up by the petitioner was disputed by another heir of the same class and, therefore, the Delhi Development Authority directed the petitioner to obtain a probate of the ‘Will’. This action of the DDA was upheld by the Court. However, in the present case, respondent No. 3 is neither a Class-I heir like respondent No. 1 nor has he set up a claim by way of testamentary succession in respect of the 980 shares. He has set up a claim on the basis of nomination. Keeping in view the fact that section 63 of the Indian Succession Act requires an unprivileged ‘Will’ to be attested by at least two witnesses in a particular manner, and that the purport of section 109A is to override even a ‘Will’ so executed, the requirement of attestation by a witness of a nomination made by a shareholder, in my view cannot be said to be merely procedural or directory.the procedural requirements laid down in the said section, for such overriding effect to be given to have to be strictly adhered to. The attestation of the nomination form by two witnesses in my view is an essential requirement which cannot be done away with. Admittedly, in the present case the purported nomination made by late Shri V.P. Punj has not been attested by any witness. Consequently, in my view the said nomination is invalid and would not have the effect of overriding the normal law of succession. Appeal dismissed.
|