Rectification of share register may proceed in summary jurisdiction where succession certificate and transfer deeds clearly establish entitlement.

In rectification proceedings under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board cannot refuse relief merely by labelling the matter as one involving title and succession if the entitlement is already supported by an operative succession certificate and executed transfer deeds. Where no real dispute of title survives and the documents clearly establish transmission of shares, summary jurisdiction remains available and rectification may be ordered without requiring a civil trial. A pending challenge to the succession certificate or an alleged stay does not, by itself, negate the documents conferring entitlement. The register could therefore be corrected in favour of the respondent group.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings for rectification of the register of members under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board could decline relief on the ground that the matter involved complicated questions of title and succession, and whether the respondents' claim to transmission of shares could be rejected despite the succession certificate and transfer deeds executed in their favour.

Analysis: The dispute was held to be one of rectification and not a genuinely contested title dispute. The succession certificate stood in favour of the respondent group, the transfer deeds were executed by the legatee in their favour, and the civil court had already declined interim restraint by finding no prima facie case against the certificate. In these circumstances, there was no conflicting adjudication requiring a civil trial before relief could be granted. The summary nature of jurisdiction under Section 111 did not bar relief where the documents establishing entitlement were clear and no serious dispute of title survived. The alleged stay order and pending challenge to the succession certificate did not displace the operative effect of the documents supporting transmission.

Conclusion: The Company Law Board was not justified in rejecting the rectification claim, and the High Court was correct in directing substitution of the respondent group in the share register.

Ratio Decidendi: In rectification proceedings under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, a seriously disputed question of title may be left to the civil court, but where entitlement is supported by an operative succession certificate and transfer deeds and no real dispute survives, the Company Law Board can grant rectification in summary jurisdiction.

---