TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a composite petition seeking rectification of the register of members and reliefs for oppression and mismanagement was maintainable; (ii) whether the petition under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 was within limitation and whether the delay could be condoned; (iii) whether the Tribunal could decide the plea of forgery of the share transfer deed in proceedings for rectification of the register of members.
Issue (i): whether a composite petition seeking rectification of the register of members and reliefs for oppression and mismanagement was maintainable.
Analysis: The petitioner's grievance was that her shares were transferred without authority and that the same transaction was followed by acts complained of as oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal held that where the challenge to removal from the register of members is intertwined with allegations affecting membership and shareholding, a composite petition is maintainable. It also held that the petitioner's holding prior to the impugned transfer satisfied the shareholding requirement for pursuing the composite petition.
Conclusion: The composite petition was maintainable.
Issue (ii): whether the petition under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 was within limitation and whether the delay could be condoned.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that proceedings under Sections 59, 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 are governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and that the applicable period was three years from accrual of the right to sue or apply. On the facts, knowledge of the transfer was attributed to the petitioner from the date on which the annual return was available, and the petition was held to be beyond time. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner's conduct, including a long unexplained silence and delay of many years, did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation.
Conclusion: The petition was barred by limitation and the delay was not condoned.
Issue (iii): whether the Tribunal could decide the plea of forgery of the share transfer deed in proceedings for rectification of the register of members.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that although it has power to order rectification where removal from the register is without sufficient cause, a serious plea of forgery requiring evidence cannot be decided summarily in rectification proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the dispute was treated as one that could not be resolved within the limited scope of the Tribunal's summary jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The plea of forgery was not fit for determination in rectification proceedings.
Final Conclusion: As the claim for rectification was held to be time-barred and no sufficient cause was shown to excuse the delay, the connected grievances based on oppression, mismanagement and the impugned share transfer did not survive for adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: A petition for rectification of the register of members under the Companies Act, 2013 is subject to the Limitation Act, 1963, and a serious dispute involving alleged forgery of transfer documents cannot be summarily adjudicated in rectification proceedings where evidence is required.
TaxTMI 
