Shareholders barred from rectification petitions under Companies Act

The Company Law Board (CLB) held that petitions seeking rectification of the register of members under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 were not maintainable as the petitioner did not meet the criteria specified in the section. The CLB ruled that shareholders of a public limited company cannot seek redressal under section 111A, and any allegations of fraud or non-receipt of consideration should be addressed in a civil court. The petitions were dismissed, interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of the register of members.
2. Validity of share transfer without consideration.
3. Authority of CLB under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Maintainability of the petitions under section 111A.

Summary:

1. Rectification of the register of members:
The petitioner company, holding shares in Columbia Trading Co. Ltd. and Pushpanjali Trexim Ltd., filed petitions u/s 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking rectification of the register of members. The petitioner alleged that the shares were transferred illegally to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without any resolution or consideration.

2. Validity of share transfer without consideration:
The petitioner argued that the transfer of shares was invalid as no consideration was received, and no board resolution was passed for the transfer. The respondent-company failed to produce the transfer deeds, which the petitioner claimed was imperative for adjudication.

3. Authority of CLB under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956:
The petitioner contended that the CLB has wide powers to decide issues relating to the transference of shares, relying on various case laws. However, the respondents argued that the petitions were not maintainable as the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down u/s 111A. The respondents further stated that section 111A is applicable only when the registration of transfer is refused by the company, which was not the case here.

4. Maintainability of the petitions under section 111A:
The respondents argued that the petitions were not maintainable as the petitioner did not qualify under any of the five categories specified u/s 111A(3). They also pointed out that the petitions were filed after the two-month limitation period. The respondents emphasized that the transfer deeds were duly signed by an authorized signatory, and there was no dispute regarding the authenticity of the signatures.

Judgment:
The CLB held that the petitions were not maintainable because the provisions of section 111A do not authorize a shareholder of a public limited company to seek redressal under this section. The petitioner did not fall under any of the five categories specified u/s 111A(3), and the petitions were filed beyond the two-month limitation period. The CLB also noted that the transfer deeds were valid as they were signed by an authorized signatory. The CLB concluded that any allegations of fraud or non-receipt of consideration should be addressed in a civil court, not before the CLB. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed, and all interim orders and pending applications were vacated. No order as to costs.

---