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 nomination under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 read with the Depositories framework confers beneficial ownership of shares or securities on the nominee to the exclusion of legal heirs; (ii) Whether the nominee holds the securities absolutely or only for a limited purpose in a fiduciary or representative capacity; (iii) Whether the use of the expression "vest" and the non-obstante clause in the nomination provisions displace the law of succession; (iv) Whether a nomination can operate as a "statutory testament" overriding a valid will or the rules of testamentary and intestate succession.
Issue (i): Whether nomination under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 read with the Depositories framework confers beneficial ownership of shares or securities on the nominee to the exclusion of legal heirs.
Analysis: The nomination facility was introduced to ease transmission formalities, protect the company or depository from competing claims, and improve investor convenience. The statutory scheme and its object did not indicate any intention to alter the law of succession or to confer absolute title on the nominee. The consistent line of decisions on analogous nomination provisions was treated as controlling, and the contrary view was rejected.
Conclusion: The nominee does not obtain beneficial ownership to the exclusion of the legal heirs.
Issue (ii): Whether the nominee holds the securities absolutely or only for a limited purpose in a fiduciary or representative capacity.
Analysis: The expression "vest" was held to be context-dependent and not conclusive of full ownership. In the present setting, vesting serves the limited purpose of enabling the company or depository to deal with the securities immediately upon death and avoid uncertainty. The nominee's role is not that of an absolute owner but of a person who can receive and deal with the securities until succession is worked out according to law.
Conclusion: The nominee holds the securities only for a limited purpose and not as absolute owner.
Issue (iii): Whether the use of the expression "vest" and the non-obstante clause in the nomination provisions displace the law of succession.
Analysis: The non-obstante clause was construed in light of the object of the enactment and not as a free-standing rule of exclusion. It protects the company or depository in dealing with the securities, but it does not rewrite inheritance law. The nominee's entitlement operates only until the legal heirs establish their rights under the succession law.
Conclusion: The non-obstante clause does not override testamentary or intestate succession.
Issue (iv): Whether a nomination can operate as a "statutory testament" overriding a valid will or the rules of testamentary and intestate succession.
Analysis: The company law provisions do not create a third mode of succession. Nomination is not subject to the formal requirements of a will under the succession law and therefore cannot be treated as a testamentary substitute. A valid will or the applicable rules of succession remain decisive as to ownership.
Conclusion: A nomination cannot operate as a statutory testament and does not supersede succession law.
Final Conclusion: The settled position that nomination under the company and depository laws does not confer absolute title was affirmed, the contrary view was disapproved, and the appeals were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A nomination provision enacted for administrative convenience and discharge of the company or depository does not, by itself, divest the heirs of their succession rights unless the statute expressly and unmistakably creates such a result.
TaxTMI 
