Rectification of share register permits discretionary court orders where entitlement is proved; costs may be awarded but damages require proof.

Section 38 confers a broad discretionary power to order rectification of a company's share register where the claimant's entitlement is established on the evidence; delay and unsatisfactory explanations may, however, affect equitable relief. The statute also permits courts wide discretion as to costs, which can be apportioned against the company and other respondents. Claims for damages require affirmative evidentiary proof and will be refused where the affidavits and material do not establish entitlement. The operative effect: rectification may be granted without a damages award, with costs allocated at the court's discretion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act to rectify the company's share register in favour of the applicant; (ii) Whether costs should be awarded and against whom; (iii) Whether the claim for damages is established.

Issue (i): Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act to rectify the company's share register in favour of the applicant.

Analysis: The transfer deed dated April 22, 1927, was considered on the basis of affidavits and surrounding circumstances. Conflicting and contradictory affidavits by the transferor and his father were examined on their face; the evidence failed to establish coercion, forgery, or lack of authority conclusively. The long delay in seeking registration was considered with explanations given by the parties, but the explanations for inaction by the transferor and the company were found unsatisfactory. The Court noted that Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act confers a wide discretionary power to make orders for rectification of the register and distinguished limitations found under earlier English decisions based on the Companies Act of 1862.

Conclusion: The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act and ordered the company to rectify its register by placing the applicant on the register as owner of shares Nos. 40001 to 40500, 56401 to 56700 and 59911 to 59999 inclusive (decision in favour of the applicant).

Issue (ii): Whether costs should be awarded and against whom.

Analysis: The statutory provision permits the Court broad discretion as to costs. Having found the company's and respondents' explanations unsatisfactory and having exercised jurisdiction in favour of the applicant, the Court considered appropriate allocation of costs.

Conclusion: Costs were ordered to be paid to the applicant by both the company and the respondents (decision in favour of the applicant on costs).

Issue (iii): Whether the claim for damages by the applicant has been established.

Analysis: The affidavits and evidentiary material did not establish entitlement to damages; the Court considered the claim and found insufficient proof to support an award of damages.

Conclusion: The claim for damages is disallowed (decision against the applicant on damages).

Final Conclusion: The Court granted substantive equitable relief under Section 38 by ordering rectification of the register and awarded costs to the applicant, while refusing the claim for damages; the Court exercised its wide discretionary power under the statute to provide final relief in the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act vests a court with broad discretionary power to rectify a company's share register where the claimant's entitlement is established on the evidence and where delay or other equities do not sufficiently bar equitable relief.

---