Share register rectification upheld where succession certificate and settlement supported transmission of shares

Rectification of the share register under Section 111 was held maintainable where the deceased shareholder's shares were supported by a succession certificate, a settlement recorded in succession proceedings, and no fraud or forgery in title was shown. The company's objections based on alleged nullity of the compromise order, pending litigation and locus standi were found insufficient to defeat transmission, especially where the articles contemplated recognition of legal representatives and transfer on adequate proof. The refusal to act in accordance with the company's own articles and the surrounding succession material was unsustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to substitution and transmission of the shares in their favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition for rectification of the share register under Section 111 of the Companies Act was maintainable and whether the company law forum had erred in refusing transmission of shares to the petitioners despite the succession certificate, the settlement recorded in the succession proceedings, and the absence of fraud or forgery.

Analysis: The dispute concerned shares standing in the name of the deceased original shareholder. The Court noted that the original shareholder had left a will in favour of his mother, who later entered into a settlement with the petitioners and renounced her claim in the probate and succession proceedings. A joint succession certificate was issued in favour of the mother and the petitioners, and the company's articles contemplated recognition of legal representatives and transmission upon sufficient evidence. The Court held that the inter se disputes raised by the respondents did not disclose any fraud or forgery in the title to the shares and that the objections based on alleged nullity of the compromise order, pending litigation, and locus standi were not sufficient to defeat rectification. The succession certificate and the surrounding circumstances constituted adequate basis for transmission, and the company could not refuse to act contrary to its own articles.

Conclusion: The refusal to rectify the register was unsustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to substitution in place of the deceased shareholder and transmission of the shares in their favour.

---