Forgery in share transfer and resignation documents justified rectification of the register and restoration of directorship.

A company-law challenge raised maintainability objections because no substantial question of law was framed and the appellant was not the directly aggrieved party. The court treated those objections as significant and found no basis to interfere. On the merits, it upheld the finding that the resignation letter, share transfer form and related documents were not proved to be genuine after comparison with admitted signatures, and held that the absence of valid transfer and valid resignation justified rectification of the register of members and restoration of directorship as consequential relief under the Companies Act, 1956.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable at the instance of the appellant in the absence of properly framed questions of law and in view of the contention that the third respondent alone was the aggrieved person; (ii) Whether the Company Law Board was justified in granting relief under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 by holding the resignation and share transfer to be forged, comparing the disputed signatures with admitted signatures, and directing rectification of the register of members and restoration of directorship.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was maintainable at the instance of the appellant in the absence of properly framed questions of law and in view of the contention that the third respondent alone was the aggrieved person.

Analysis: The appeal was challenged as not maintainable because no question of law had been framed and because the grievance, if any, was said to belong to the third respondent. The Court accepted that the appellant had primarily attacked findings of fact without formulating questions of law, and observed that this was by itself a ground to reject the appeal. The Court also noted that the third respondent, rather than the appellant, was the person directly affected by the impugned order.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable on the appellant's showing, and the objection as to locus standi weighed against interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the Company Law Board was justified in granting relief under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 by holding the resignation and share transfer to be forged, comparing the disputed signatures with admitted signatures, and directing rectification of the register of members and restoration of directorship.

Analysis: The Court held that the Company Law Board had examined the pleadings and materials, compared the disputed signatures with admitted signatures, and reached a reasoned finding that the resignation letter, share transfer form and related documents were not proved to bear the second respondent's genuine signatures. It further held that the absence of reliable proof of valid transfer or acceptance of resignation justified the conclusions that the transfer could not stand and that rectification of the register and restoration of directorship were proper consequential reliefs. The Court rejected the argument that such an exercise was impermissible in summary proceedings or required a civil court trial before relief could be granted.

Conclusion: The Company Law Board's findings on forgery, transfer of shares, resignation and consequential relief were upheld, and no error of law was found.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained in full and the appellate court declined to interfere, leaving the relief granted by the Company Law Board intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board may examine disputed documents and compare signatures with admitted signatures to determine whether resignation or share transfer documents are genuine, and may grant rectification and consequential relief where the material establishes forgery or invalid transfer.

---