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 the petitioner established title to the shares by devolution under the merger orders and the supporting certificate; (ii) whether the company's refusal to register the petitioner as shareholder was bona fide and supported by sufficient cause under the Companies Act, and whether rectification could be ordered in summary proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner established title to the shares by devolution under the merger orders and the supporting certificate.
Analysis: The material on record showed that the State of Mayurbhanj was merged and that property vested in the absorbing Province unless held for Central purposes. The certificate under the merger order stated that the shares were not held for a Central purpose. The correspondence and annexures also showed that the petitioner had placed the relevant documents before the company, and the title question was not found to be complicated or doubtful.
Conclusion: The petitioner established title to the shares by devolution.
Issue (ii): Whether the company's refusal to register the petitioner as shareholder was bona fide and supported by sufficient cause under the Companies Act, and whether rectification could be ordered in summary proceedings.
Analysis: The refusal was founded chiefly on non-execution of the contemplated agreement and on technical objections about transfer formalities. The court held that a claim for specific performance or damages could be pursued separately and did not justify refusing registration on the facts. The transfer deed and related formalities were found to have been complied with, and the refusal was held to be delayed and not bona fide. The court further held that section 38 empowered it to decide questions of title and to order rectification where the facts were sufficiently clear.
Conclusion: The refusal to register was not bona fide and was without sufficient cause, and rectification could be ordered under section 38.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to have its name entered in the register of members in place of the existing holder, and the register was directed to be rectified accordingly with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, the court may determine title and order rectification where the claimant's title is clear and the company's refusal to register shares is not shown to be bona fide or supported by sufficient cause; a fiduciary power to refuse registration must be exercised bona fide in the interests of the company.
TaxTMI 
