TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 12/1014 in the first respondent-company, by reason of splitting, shares in each of the folios became 4,920 shares. Since her father and mother expired in the year 1994 and 1990, on 18-1-2006, the petitioner wrote a letter to the company indicating those two folios held jointly by her parents, thereby requesting the company to give particulars as to the status of the said shares and not to transfer or demat the shares in the name of anybody. Responding to the same, respondent No. 1 company wrote back to the petitioner on 20-1-2006, that the split share certificates were dispatched by registered post to her father on 22-10-2005, itself. It is also further informed that out of those 4,920 shares lying in the name of the petitioner's father, 1,640 shares comprised in share certificate No. 95754 bearing the distinctive numbers 2528020236-2528021857 had been lodged with the company for transfer on 22-12-2005, along with a duly executed transfer deed complete in respect for transfer in favour of the second respondent, viz., Sanjay Kumar Taneja. Since the signature of the transferor on the transfer deed being matched with the specimen signatures on record, the shares were transferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Despite the company was put to the notice of all these things long prior to transfer, the company, knowing pretty well that the transfer of shares to respondent No. 2 is in violation of law, transferred the shares to respondent No. 2. Thereby, the petitioner submits that she alone is entitled for transmission of shares in her name, the transfer purportedly had taken place in favour of respondent No. 2 is manifestation of fraud, in view of the same, she filed this petition stating that the other legal heirs of her parents, i.e., her sister Sheela T. Mansukhani and her brother Gulu P. Lalwani relinquished their entitlement to the shareholding in this company lying in the name of her parents by filing affidavits and also deed of relinquishment entitling her to ownership rights to the disputed shares, hence sought rectification in her name. 3. To which, the first respondent filed a reply stating on November 23, 2005, the company received share certificate No. 95754 for 1,640 shares along with the transfer deed from Sanjay Kr. Taneja (respondent No. 2) for transfer of such shares from account No. 12/1014 of the deceased father of the petitioner in his favour which was returned stati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2-2006, 9-5-2006, corresponded through letters (Annexure E) to comply with the formalities for transmitting the shares held in account No. 12/1015. Again the petitioner wrote a letter on 18-7-2006, to transmit the shares lying in account No. 12/1014 to which the company wrote a letter on 31-8-2006 (Annexure F) advising the petitioner to send appropriate court order in respect of the same. On 15-1-2007, the Company Law Board received a letter from respondent No. 2 stating that the grand daughter of the registered holder deceased Lalwani, Ashok Lalwani sold the shares to him, thereby he had no objection for reverting back the shares in the name of the original holders and he would not have any claim in future. The letter sent by respondent No. 2 is marked as Annexure G. Apart from this, the respondent-company received another letter dated 27-1-2007 (Annexure H) from Ms. Renu Ashok Lalwani, grand daughter of the registered holder Mr. Parmanand T. Lalwani, stating that the shares of various companies held by her grandfather were fraudulently transferred in the name of the petitioner and still trying to get the remaining shares transferred to her name without proper succession. With all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from the name of the registered holder, he sent the same to the company for dematerialisation, since he came to know of the demise of the registered holder, he candidly made a submission that he has no objection to revert back the shares to the original holders in the records of the company, thereby it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner, i.e., deceased Lalwani is the registered holder of 4,920 shares in Folio No. 12/1014. Now the point is whether this petitioner is entitled to become the holder of the said shares by virtue of the documents filed before this Bench. The petitioner filed affidavits said to have been given by her brother and sister and also relinquishment deed, which is reported to have executed by her brother and sister, but not filed any succession certificate entitling her for the shares lying in the name of her father. Had she alone been the heir of her father, in the present set of facts, it would have been different. Here, there are other legal heirs entitled to these shares along with her by operation of law. By the time she filed this petition, these share certificates are not in the possession of her, she did not mention anywhere in the peti....