Forgot password
1959 (1) TMI 16 - HC - Companies Law
Issues:
Dispute over transfer of shares in a private limited company; Allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents; Applicability of summary remedy under section 155 of the Companies Act; Comparison with English legal principles; Judicial discretion in allowing petitions under section 155; Reference to previous court decisions on similar matters.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the transfer of shares in a private limited company between the petitioner and her husband, who were both directors of the company. The petitioner alleges that the minutes of a meeting where the transfer was approved were fabricated to deprive her of the shares and her directorship. She denies executing the deed of transfer, claiming that the contents are forged and fabricated, although she does not dispute her signature on the document.
The respondent argues that the procedure under section 155 of the Indian Companies Act, which provides a summary remedy, is not suitable for matters involving complex issues like forgery and fabrication. Reference is made to English legal principles, emphasizing that cases with intricate factual questions should be resolved through a formal lawsuit rather than a summary petition. The court is urged to consider the complexity of the case and the need for thorough investigation before allowing a petition under section 155.
Citing the case of Matheran Steam Tramway Co. v. Lang, it is highlighted that the court has discretion in deciding whether to hear a petition under section 155 or direct the parties to pursue a separate lawsuit. The judgment emphasizes that the wide wording of the Companies Act allows for flexibility in choosing the appropriate legal remedy, considering factors like speed and cost-effectiveness.
Referring to Shrimati Savitadevi Jhunjunwala v. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., the court notes a previous decision where a petitioner was directed to file a lawsuit instead of proceeding through the summary procedure of section 155. This case serves as a precedent for exercising caution in allowing petitions involving complex factual disputes to be resolved summarily.
Ultimately, the court decides to dismiss the petition, advising the petitioner to file a regular suit if she wishes to pursue the relief sought. The judgment underscores that where intricate issues of fabrication and forgery are involved, the summary procedure may not be appropriate, and parties should resort to a formal lawsuit for a more comprehensive resolution. The costs of the petition will be borne by the petitioner if no suit is filed within the specified timeframe.