TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mily home situated at 5764 Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi, in 1961, and later the petitioner who was a director was removed from the board of directors of the company on September 30, 1964. There is also some other litigation still going on between the parties concerning the joint Hindu family, Rai Saheb Shyam Singh, which is mentioned in the petition. In 1974, the petitioner wrote to the company intimating that he was not receiving notices regarding the annual general meeting for some time. The petition also states that the petitioner could not locate the share scrips and so he wrote to the company in April, 1976, stating that the share certificates had been lost and duplicate share certificates should be issued. It is claimed that it was only as a result of these letters that the petitioner learnt that the shares had been transferred to Smt. Meena Devi in October, 1965. It is claimed that the transfer documents were not genuine and an illegal transfer had been effected in favour of Smt. Meena Devi who is also the mother of Shri Jai Singh, the present managing director of the company. A reference is made in the petition to an affidavit filed by Shri Jai Singh in Suit No. 24 of 1971 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... means the stamps must have been purchased before 1950. Along with this document a photostat copy of the affidavit-undertaking of Bharat Singh has been filed, which shows that he had lodged some shares for transfer to the name of his wife, Smt. Meena Devi. This states that the shares were purchased benami in the name of Charat Singh and Mahabir Singh and the transfer deeds were witnessed by himself and his brother-in-law, Shri Anand Parkash. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the signatures of Shri Bharat Singh on this undertaking are very much different from the signatures of Bharat Singh appearing on the transfer document. It is also contended that the signatures of Mahabir Singh are also different from his real signatures. In a further rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has stated that there were two separate allotments of shares. It has been emphasised that originally 35 shares were allotted, and then 35 more shares were allotted to the petitioner in 1959, which was paid for by cheque No. 48142 dated June 6, 1959, drawn on the Central Bank of India, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. A certificate from the Central Bank has been annexed to the rejoinder-affidavit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in a form other than the prescribed form, shall be accepted by a company, ( a )in the case of shares dealt in or quoted on a recognised stock exchange, ( b )in any other case, at any time not later than the expiry of six months from such commencement". Hence, the meaning of this section is that after the said Companies (Amendment) Act, 1965, was passed a six months' period was given by the statute to enable holders of shares to get blank transfer documents, if any, deposited in the company and the shares transferred as required. I have checked up the relevant dates and find that the 6 months' period had not yet expired on October 20, 1965, when the alleged deposit of the shares along with the transfer documents took place. This means that as far as the date mentioned by the company is concerned, it cannot be said that the shares and the transfer documents could not be acted upon. The next question is that can it be accepted as a fact that the company could have delayed the transfer for a period of 10 years merely because it had misplaced the documents ? If this is a believable story then the transfer could have been made at any time provided the deposit of the requisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... King George the Sixth were currently in use which would be before 1950, then these transfer documents would be valid only regarding 35 shares which were then in existence. I am, therefore, of the view that this transfer cannot be considered to be valid, even though I am not prepared to go to the extent of holding that the document is forged. In my view, one possibility is that 35 shares were originally issued benami in the name of the petitioner because the company was a family firm started by his brother. However, the shares issued in 1959 have apparently been paid for by the petitioner himself as per his cheque issued on the Central Bank of India, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, as mentioned in the certificate of the said Central Bank which has been filed. It cannot be said that even additional shares issued against cash payment can be considered to be benami shares. Furthermore, the alleged affidavit of Bharat Singh dated October 20, 1965, states that all these shares are benami. As at that time Bharat Singh was running the company, I fail to understand why he could not get the shares transferred on that very day. In fact, even the transfer charges were not paid till 1975, which lends s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
