TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent Company for rectification of its Register of Members by inserting the name of the Petitioner with respect to the shares-in-question. 2. The facts, in brief, as set out in the petition are here as under: 2.1 That the Petitioner was carrying on the business of rectification of bad delivery shares- Signature mismatch under the name and style of M/s. Share Care hawing its office at D-109, III Floor, Vivek Vihar Phase I, Delhi-110 095, The- Petitioner was also an active investor in shares and securities. 2.2 That in the course of his business, the Petitioner had purchased 100 shares of M/s Thermax Limited (Rs. 10/- paid up) vide share certificate number 59972 bearing distinctive numbers 20134611-20134710 held by Mrs. Meena Bipin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent Company. On this occasion, the registered holders executed a fresh transfer deed which was attested by senior bank manager Mr. Prakash U.Tawade of UCO Bank, Vile Parie (East) Branch, Jasoda Niwas, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400 057. 2.5 The registered holders also executed bank attested sworn affidavit, to enable the registrar to update specimen signature in their records. As an abundant mark of caution, another Affidavit was executed by the registered holders which were duly attested by Notary Public. 2.6 That the Petitioner re-lodged all these documents mentioned hereinabove of the registrar of the Respondent, for the registration of transfer in his favour under the cover of his letter dated 10/03/2010. The Petitioners p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2008 dated 03/07/2008 to Petitioner asking him to produce an appropriate order of competent court of law, Hence this petition. 3. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed their respective reply(s). the Respondent No. 1 Company in its reply has denied the claim of the Petitioner, and sought the dismissal of the petition interalia on the ground that the petition is time barred; that this forum has no jurisdiction and lastly, the Petitioner is not lawful owner of the share in question. The Respondent No. 2 has also taken similar pleas in its reply. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 however, in their affidavit in reply have supported the claim of the Petitioner. 4. I have heard the Petitioner in person and the Ld. Counsel representing the Company and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to note here that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed their affidavits before this Bench supporting the claim of the Petitioner. It is to be noted that their Identity is not disputed, Furthermore, the Petitioner has filed sufficient documentary evidence to prove the title of the shares-in-questions which has not been controverted by the Respondent Company, Therefore, In my view, the reason attributed by the Respondent Company cannot be held as a sufficient cause for refusal of the transfer of shares in favour of the Petitioner. The Petition thus deserves to be allowed. The order is as follows:- ORDER 1. Company Petition is allowed, Respondent Company is directed to transfer and transmit the shares-in-question, the details whereof ....