Share transfer and directorship disputes: board-approved transfer stood, misappropriation failed, and cessation of office was not proved.

Allegations of misappropriation were rejected where the disputed sum was shown to have been received in settlement of a land transaction, deposited in the company account, and supported by a memorandum of understanding. The challenge to transfer of 2,170 shares failed because the transfer form bore the petitioner's signature and the transfer had been board-approved; any dispute over non-payment of consideration was treated as a matter between transferor and transferee, not a ground for rectification in company proceedings. The record also did not establish completed removal from directorship, as the required cessation filing was absent, so the petitioner was treated as continuing as a director. Limited relief was granted only for delivery of share certificates for the remaining shares in her name.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 11 lakhs was proved; (ii) whether the transfer of 2,170 shares to the second respondent was invalid and warranted rectification of the register of members and return of the remaining share certificates; and (iii) whether the petitioner's removal from directorship was valid.

Issue (i): whether the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 11 lakhs was proved

Analysis: The allegation arose from a settlement relating to a land transaction in which monies were received from the seller after the land was found to be notified for acquisition. The materials showed that the amount received was deposited in the company account and the settlement was evidenced by the memorandum of understanding. The claim that Rs. 11 lakhs had been siphoned off was not established on the evidence placed before the Board.

Conclusion: The allegation of misappropriation was not proved and this claim failed.

Issue (ii): whether the transfer of 2,170 shares to the second respondent was invalid and warranted rectification of the register of members and return of the remaining share certificates

Analysis: The share transfer form bore the petitioner's signature and recorded a transfer of 2,170 shares for consideration of Rs. 6,26,000. The transfer was approved in the board meeting and the petitioner was shown as present. The dispute regarding non-payment of consideration was treated as a matter between the transferor and transferee and not a ground for company law intervention in these proceedings. The Board also found from the annual returns that the petitioner continued to hold 2,180 shares after the transfer. On that basis, the petitioner was held entitled to receive the share certificates relating to the remaining shares in her name.

Conclusion: The challenge to the transfer failed, but the petitioner was entitled to delivery of the share certificates for 2,180 shares.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioner's removal from directorship was valid

Analysis: The record showed notice under the Companies Act, 1956 was issued for proposing removal, but no Form No. 32 evidencing cessation had been filed with the Registrar of Companies. In the absence of proof of completed removal, the Board presumed that the petitioner continued as a director of the company.

Conclusion: The alleged removal from directorship was not proved and the petitioner was treated as continuing as a director.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only in part, with limited relief granted in respect of the petitioner's continuing shareholding and directorship, while the substantive allegations of fraud and misappropriation were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute over consideration for an otherwise executed and board-approved share transfer does not, by itself, justify rectification in company proceedings, and cessation of directorship is not complete unless the statutory and filing requirements are shown to have been complied with.

---