Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Board Companies Law - 2015 (5) TMI Board This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 591 - Board - Companies LawApplication for rectification of the register of members u/s 111 r/w section 402 & 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Illegally allotment of shares - Wrongly admitted as a member / shareholder of company - No provision u/s 111A regarding allotment is valid or not - Held that:- The allegation of the petitioner is that it has been Illegally allotted shares of the Respondent company without notice to the petitioner; therefore, sought for rectification of register. The case of the petitioner is about allotment, but not on transfer as laid under sub-section (l11A) of the Companies Act. It is clear that there are two provisions under the Companies Act dealing with rectification of share register, one is section 111 of the Act 1956 deal with private limited companies, another is section 111 A of the Act 1956 deal with public limited companies. It is true sub-section (4) of section 111 has not said rectification is limited transfer and transmission of the shares, whereas the heading of section 111A of the Act itself says rectification of register is on transfer, therefore, an issue in relation to allotment in public limited companies will not fall within the ambit of section 111A of the Act 1956. There is no provision in section 111A analogous to sub-section (4) of Section 111 of the Act 1956, therefore there being no provision under section 111A to go beyond transfer and transmission cases, I believe CLB is not conferred with jurisdiction under section 111A either to say allotment is invalid or valid.n view of the same, this Bench is of the opinion that the issue being related to allotment of the shares to the petitioner, the impugned allotment of shares being in relation to the Public Limited Company, Company Law Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate as to whether allotment made to the petitioner is valid or not. - Decided against the appellant.
|