Rectification of shareholder register denied where disputed forgery and clerical issues require full trial, not summary relief.

Whether a petitioner may obtain rectification of the company's register of shareholders under companies law by summary proceedings was examined; the court applied the principle that rectification is a discretionary remedy but that summary relief is inappropriate where core facts are contested. Because allegations included possible forgery of the transfer deed, disputed clerical error, and complex sequence of dealings requiring detailed evidence and inquiry, the court declined to resolve those factual disputes in summary proceedings and refused to exercise its discretionary power to direct rectification, dismissing the petitioner's request.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to rectification of the company's register of shareholders under Section 38 of the Companies Act where the company later alleges the transfer form was forged and cancels the transfer.

Analysis: The Court examined whether summary proceedings under Section 38 were appropriate when the fundamental facts-whether the transfer deed was forged, whether there was a clerical mistake, and the sequence of dealings at the company and the Stock Exchange-were disputed and required detailed investigation. The Court noted that Section 38 confers a discretionary power to order rectification of the register but that where factual questions are complicated and contested, the proper forum is a regular suit or full inquiry rather than summary proceedings. Applying the legal framework of discretionary relief under Section 38 and the principles limiting summary relief where contested facts need thorough evidence, the Court declined to undertake a detailed trial within the summary application.

Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise its discretion under Section 38 and dismissed the petition; the prayer for rectification is denied (against the petitioner).

---