9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haskar P. Gupta, S. Sukumaran and K. Rajeev for the Appellant. R.F. Nariman, C. Mukund, Ms. Neeraj, Pankaj Jain, Ashok Kumar Jain and Bijoy Kumar Jain for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Altamas Kabir, J. - Certain shares of the appellant-company were being held by Poddar Udyog Limited. Under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Calcutta High Court on 19-8-1997, a part of the business division of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Board allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein by directing the appellant-company to register the original shares in favour of the respondent No. 1, but declined to grant any relief to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 accepted the order and did not prefer any appeal. The appellant-company being dissatisfied with the decision of the Company Law Board filed an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany and affirmed those of the Company Law Board. It is against the said order of the Calcutta High Court that the instant appeal has been filed. 5. Although, in the appeal a question was raised as to whether for registration of transfer of shares effected under a scheme of arrangement or compromise or amalgamation sanctioned by a competent court under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in its favour, such a submission is not acceptable since the respondent No. 2 stands on a different footing. Till such time as the shares were not registered in the name of the respondent No. 1, the application of the respondent No. 2 for subsequent registration of the same shares in its name could not be considered. Accordingly, the direction given by the Company Law Board in respect of the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
