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 petitions under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 were maintainable in law; (ii) whether the transfers of shares in the three subsidiary companies were fraudulent, illegal, void and a nullity; (iii) whether the shares were sold at an undervalue and in contravention of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956; and (iv) whether the petitioner was entitled to rectification of the share registers and consequential reliefs.
Issue: (i) whether the petitions under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 were maintainable in law
Analysis: Section 155 empowered the court to examine whether a person's name had been entered in or omitted from the register without sufficient cause and, under sub-section (3), to decide questions relating to title and all questions necessary or expedient in connection with rectification. Where the challenge was that the transfers were illegal, fraudulent and ineffective, the remedy of rectification was available. The petitioner's own involvement in the impugned transactions did not bar the applications, and no prior demand to the companies for rectification was required before invoking the court's jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The petitions were maintainable and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue: (ii) whether the transfers of shares in the three subsidiary companies were fraudulent, illegal, void and a nullity
Analysis: The resolutions relied upon for the sales were found to be vague, hasty and unsupported by proper consideration of the company's financial position, the need for sale, or the market value of the shares. The evidence showed absence of genuine publicity or exploration of better offers, hurried approvals, and the leading role of V.K. Mundhra in the transactions. The court found that the purchasers were not shown to have independent financial capacity commensurate with the purchases and that the non-production of important witnesses and documents justified an adverse inference. On the materials, the transfers were held to be tainted by fraud and lack of bona fides.
Conclusion: The transfers were fraudulent, illegal, void and a nullity, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue: (iii) whether the shares were sold at an undervalue and in contravention of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956
Analysis: The court compared the sale prices with the financial position of the companies, contemporaneous dealings, balance-sheets and transfer entries, and concluded that the prices fetched were grossly below the market value. It further held that the impugned sales were not effected through or with a member of a recognised stock exchange and were not protected as spot delivery contracts. In the notified Calcutta area, section 13 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 applied, and the transactions were therefore illegal under that provision.
Conclusion: The shares were sold at an undervalue and the transactions contravened the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956; this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue: (iv) whether the petitioner was entitled to rectification of the share registers and consequential reliefs
Analysis: Once the sales were held to be fraudulent, void and contrary to law, the entries in favour of the transferees had been made without sufficient cause and the registers required correction. The petitioner was entitled to restoration of its name as holder of the shares, while the transferees were entitled only to refund of the actual consideration paid, without interest, and no separate damages were awarded.
Conclusion: Rectification was ordered in favour of the petitioner, with refund of consideration to the transferees and no damages.
Final Conclusion: The three petitions succeeded substantially, the impugned share transfers were set aside, the share registers were directed to be corrected by restoring the petitioner-company as owner, and the transferees were confined to recovery of the consideration paid.
Ratio Decidendi: In a proceeding for rectification of the register of members, the court may determine whether an impugned share transfer was fraudulent, illegal or without sufficient cause, and if the transaction is found to be void and unlawful, the register must be corrected and the transferee cannot retain title under the defective entry.
TaxTMI 
