Rectification of register requires valid share transfer, proven membership, and timely filing; unsupported claims fail.

A claim for rectification of the register and oppression and mismanagement relief must be brought within limitation and supported by proof of valid share transfer and membership. The tribunal found the petition time-barred under the three-year period applied to the claim, because it was filed more than three years after the alleged transfer. It also found no able compliance with the Companies Act, 2013 or the articles for transfer and registration of shares, no satisfactory link between the remittances and a genuine share purchase, and no entry of the applicants' names in the register of members. On that basis, locus standi was not established and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petition seeking rectification of register and oppression and mismanagement reliefs was within limitation; (ii) whether the alleged transfer of shares was proved to have been completed in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013 and the articles of association; (iii) whether the amounts remitted could be treated as consideration for purchase of shares; and (iv) whether the appellants established their status as members so as to maintain the petition.

Issue (i): whether the petition seeking rectification of register and oppression and mismanagement reliefs was within limitation

Analysis: The transfer was alleged to have taken place on 18.04.2015, while the petition was filed only on 09.11.2018. The relevant limitation period was treated as three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On that basis, the claim was found to have been raised beyond time.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged transfer of shares was proved to have been completed in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013 and the articles of association

Analysis: The evidence did not establish delivery of proper transfer instruments, compliance with the statutory procedure for transfer and registration, or adherence to the company's articles. The record also showed that the appellants failed to produce the original share certificates and transfer deeds when directed, and the documents relied on were found to be inconsistent with the company's records.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether the amounts remitted could be treated as consideration for purchase of shares

Analysis: The monetary trail did not show a direct payment by the appellants towards acquisition of shares. The transfers were linked to a third party transaction, a substantial part of the money was returned, and the explanation given did not satisfactorily connect the remittances with a genuine share purchase.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iv): whether the appellants established their status as members so as to maintain the petition

Analysis: A petition under the oppression and mismanagement provisions is maintainable only by a member. Since the alleged transfer of shares was not proved and the appellants failed to show that their names were entered in the register of members, they did not establish locus standi as members or shareholders.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal order failed, and the appeal was rejected on all material grounds for want of proof of shareholding, statutory compliance, and maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant seeking rectification of the register and oppression and mismanagement relief must first prove valid transfer of shares and membership in accordance with the statutory procedure and the company's articles; absent such proof, the petition is not maintainable, and a stale claim is barred by limitation.

---