TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equity shares of the respondent company along with joint name of petitioner No. 4. Petitioner No. 1 and 3 after following due process of law, got succession certificate from Hon'ble City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in respect of equity shares of the respondent company held by late Mukundbhai Saheba. Late Mukundbhai Saheba along with petitioner No.2 being the legal owner and possessors of 36 equity shares of the respondent company and were members of the respondent company. Names of petitioners 2 to 4 was wrongly removed from the list of respondent company inspite of their obtaining succession certificate and applying to the respondent-company for rectification of the register by registering name of petitioner No. 1 and 3, the company has declined registration of their names by remaining silent. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent company is bound to rectify the list of members by adding name of petitioners 1 and 3 in the register of members. According to the petitioner, provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable in the case of filing of the petitioner under section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956. The cause of action arose upon non-registration of the shares in the n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er form dated 5th November, 2004 in respect of 11 equity shares of the respondent company which is in the name of Jitendra Sankalchand Gandhi based on purported signature of the deceased Mukundbhai Saheba, but in fact he died in the year 2001 and it is not known how his signature was there in the transfer form dated 05.11.2004. According to the petitioner, the shares are illegal taken away and names of petitioner 2 to 4 have been wrongly removed from the list of members. 7. Respondent company, in its communication dated 21st March, 2005 addressed to deceased Mukundbhai Saheba stated that the signatures of the transferees are different/not tallying with the specimen signature recorded in the company. Said communication was in fact addressed to the alleged transferee in respect of 11 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 58032153 to 163. Respondent company is aware of the fact that, Mukundbhai Saheba who sold out 36 equity shares of the company expired on 11.03.2001 through the communication made by petitioner 1 and 3. Respondent company is also aware of the fact that the alleged false transfer deed came to be lodged in the year 2004 forging signature of the deceased who already expired....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in respect of the shares of the respondent company of the deceased Mukundbhai Saheba and petitioner 2. Petitioners 1 and 3 gave application to the respondent company on 12.05.2012 vide ex. 2 basing on the succession certificate. In the said letter, petitioner 1 and 2 also referred to the civil suit No. 3567 of 1996 filed before Civil Court at Ahmedabad against Ankit Anandrai Shah, alleged broker maliciously transferred 11 equity shares in the name of one Jitendra Sakalchand Gandhi on the basis of transfer form dated 5th November, 2004 said to have been executed for the deceased Mukundbhai Saheba who died in the year 2001. 15. As can be seen from the letter of respondent company dated 11.06.2012 which is in response to the letter of petitioners 1 and 3 dated 12.05.2012 it is clear that only objection for the respondent company for transmission of shares of the deceased and petitioner 2 in the name of petitioners 1 and 3 is the civil suit No. 3567 of 1996 filed by late Mukundbhai Saheba. Next objection seems to be one Jitendra Sakalchand Gandhi sought for transfer of 11 equity shares on the basis of transfer deed dated 05.11.2014 said to have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specific provision in the Limitation Act which governs in respect of transmission of shares. Therefore, Articles 113 and 137 of Limitation Act provides for three years' limitation from the date on the right to sue accrue. 19. In the case on hand, the right to sue the respondent company is 11.06.2012 on which date respondent company wrote a letter to the first petitioner. This petition was filed on 22nd October, 2013. Therefore, this petition is within time and it is not barred by limitation. 20. In view of the above discussions, there shall be direction to the respondent company for transmission of first batch of 36 shares in the name of the petitioners 1 and 3 and second batch of 36 shares in the name of petitioners 3 and 4. 21. Among the 36 shares that are ordered to be transmitted in favour of petitioners 1 and 3 basing on the succession certificate, there appears to be a claim made by Jitendra Sankalchand Gandhi on the basis of transfer deed dated 5th November, 2004 said to have been executed by the deceased Mukundbhai Saheba and 2nd petitioner. There shall be direction to the respondent company before effecting transmission of names of petitioners 1 and 3 in resp....