TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to as '2013 Act'), vide Diary No.1991 dated 17.03.2017 against the respondents, by challenging the action in rejecting to transfer the shares in the name of the applicant. 2. Thereafter, the applicant filed the instant CA under Rule 32 and Rule 153 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, (for short hereinafter to be referred as '2016 Rules') read with the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short hereinafter to be referred as '1963 Act') seeking condonation of delay of 186 days in filing the Appeal. 3. Reply on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the instant CA was filed vide Diary No.1213 dated 17.07.2017. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Association of the Company 3. Board Resolution 4. Self Attested copy of PAN 5. Power of Attorney of Deutsche Bank, for transfer of one lakh shares in your name. 2. With regard to the aforesaid request, please be informed that Unit Trust of India A/c Vecaus-I was issued and allotted 1,00,000 equity shares pursuant to Subscription Agreement executed between Akal Spring Limited ("Company") and Technology Subscription Agreement that nothing in the Agreement conflicts with any of the provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. 3. As per the Articles of Association of the Company, no existing member can transfer the shares to a non-member without complying with the stipulated procedure of right to first refusa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delay in filing the appeal under Section 58 of the 2013 Act, however, he further submitted that the delay occurred in filing the Appeal under Section 58 of the 2013 Act, can be condoned under the provisions of the 1963 Act, in view of Section 433 of the 2013 Act. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submissions: - i.) M/s Mackintosh Burn Limited Versus M/s Sarkar & Chowdhury Enterprises Private Limited; ACO No.199 of 2015 APO No.448 of 2015, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta; ii.) Property Company Limited Versus Rohinten Daddy Mazda; 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 7462; passed by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y shall be freely transferable: Provided that any contract or arrangement between two or more persons in respect of transfer of securities shall be enforceable as a contract. (3) The transferee may appeal to the Tribunal against the refusal within a period of period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice or in case no notice has been sent by the company, within a period of sixty days from the date on which the instrument of transfer or the intimation of transmission, as the case may be, was delivered to the company. (4) If a public company without sufficient cause refuses to register the transfer of securities within a period of thirty days from the date on which the instrument of transfer or the intimation of transm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter the respondent finally refused the transfer of shares on 20.09.2016, the applicant had to collect/organize documents that went back to 2011, to enable to it to file the appeal at Chandigarh and in the process, the delay of 186 days occurred. 10. Though the applicant made a request for transfer of shares for the first time on 29.11.2011, but the respondent-company, vide letters dated 10.06.2015 and 11.01.2016 advised the applicant to submit the correct forms to enable it to affect the transfer of shares in the name of the applicant-company, and finally rejected the request of the applicant, only on 19.08.2016. Hence, in the circumstances, we hold that the delay commenced with effect from 19.08.2016 only. 11. It is the settled princi....