TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (company). This is the description given by the complainant in the complaint before the learned MM. The allegation in the complaint is that certain shares of the company were sought to be transferred in the name of the complainant Bank for which purpose the share certificates along with the duly executed transfer deeds were sent to the company. The specific averments in the complaint in this regard as contained in paras 12 to 15 read as under: 12. That in the month of March 1996, the accused No. 1 transferred the share certificates and accordingly the delivery of 3507248 shares of the accused No. 1 after having duly transferred in favor of the complainant Bank was given to the complainant but the said shares were not split issued in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 113 of the Act and that provision does not contemplate a situation of failure by the company to deliver the share certificates in marketable lots. In other words, he submits that the only requirement is that after transferring of the shares, the share certificates should be duly returned to the transferee. According to him, Section 113 does not make it a punishable offence if after the company s shares are transferred, the share certificates are not delivered in the marketable lots. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent refers to its written note of arguments in which it is submitted as under: In the present case, the point of issuance of share certificates is not involved as the company has already issued the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having to deliver the share certificates after duly transferring the shares in favor of the transferee. There is no requirement in that provision for delivery of the share certificates after splitting them into the marketable lots. Since Section 113(2) is a penal provision which prescribes a punishment for violation of Section 113(1), it can only admit of a strict construction. A requirement not contained in the express wording of Section 113(1) cannot be read into it. 8. For the above reasons, the case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 113 of the Act is unsustainable in law and accordingly the impugned summoning order dated 12th July, 2001 issued by the MM and the complaint in so far as they concern the Petitioner ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
