SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Cal) 176

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. P. MITRA, J.
Nazmunnessa Begum Administratrix
Versus
Vidyasagar Cotton Mills
Suit No. C.P.25 of 1961
Decided On : 08-09-1961

Advocates:
Sumbhu Ghose for Applicant; S. Sen for Respondent.

A person who has become entitled to be a member of a company is entitled to have their name entered on the Register of Members.

Headnote:

COMPANY - Rectification of Register of Members - Application for - Petitioner, widow of deceased shareholder, obtaining Letters of Administration - Company refusing to register her name as holder of shares - Whether petitioner entitled to rectification of Register - Whether application maintainable under Section 155(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held, yes.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, widow of deceased shareholder, obtained Letters of Administration. Company refused to register her name as holder of shares. Petitioner applied for rectification of Register.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to rectification of the Register. The court found that the company had made default in not registering the petitioner's name as the holder of the shares. The court also found that the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased shareholder and was entitled to be registered as the holder of the shares.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to rectification of the Register of Members. Whether the application was maintainable under Section 155(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to rectification of the Register of Members. The court found that the company had made default in not registering the petitioner's name as the holder of the shares. The court also found that the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased shareholder and was entitled to be registered as the holder of the shares.

Final Decision: The court ordered that the Register of Members be rectified by inserting the petitioner's name as the holder of the shares.

ORDER :- This is an application for an order inter alia, that the Share Register or Register of Members of the respondent Company be rectified by inserting the name of the petitioner as the holder of 11,825 fully paid up ordinary shares and 591 fully paid up 7% cumulative preference shares in the place and stead of Mohamed Bashir, deceased. The petitioners case is that Mohamad Bashir died intestate on the that March, 1960 leaving as his heirs and next of kins the petitioner who is his widow, his son Mohamad Riaz and several married and unmarried daughters. On the 16th December, 1960 the petitioner applied to this court for the grant of Letters of Administration of the property and credits including the aforesaid shares of Mohammad Bashir to the petitioner. On January 20, 1961, Letters of Administration were granted to the petitioner by this court. The petitioners solicitors on the 20th January, 1961 wrote to the respondent Company requesting the Company to insert the petitioners name in its share register as the holder of the said shares. Between the 21st and the 24th January, 1961 the Company did not take any steps in the matter. On the 24th January, 1961 a meeting of the Board of Directors was called to be held on the 25th January to consider the petitioners application. At the meeting in which five Directors were present including the petitioner, she requested the Chairman to enter her name in the Share Register in the place of Mohamad Bashir. Thereupon Manzoor Ahmed, one of the Directors objected to the proposal on the plea that the meeting had not been properly called. The other Directors also refused to do anything in the matter and vacated the room at the request of Monzoor Ahmed.

2. On December 24, 1960 the Companys Directors resolved to hold the Annual General Meeting on the 9th February, 1961. According to the petitioner the object of the other Directors was to prevent the petitioner from exercising her votes in respect of the shares held by Mohamad Bashir at the Annual General Meeting. They are determined not to insert the petitioners name as the holder of these shares and in these circumstances she has applied to this Court.

3. An affidavit-in-opposition has been affirmed by Altaf Hossen on the 4th February, 1961. The material averments in his affidavit are that the Letters of Administration dated the 20th January, 1961 issued in the goods of Mohmad Bashir were delivered along with other documents to the Companys accountant on the 21st January, 1961. The office of the Company remained closed from the 21st to the 23rd January, 1961. On the 24th January, the petitioner sent telegrams to the Companys Directors for holding a meeting on the 25th January. The telegram addressed to Altaf Hossain did not reach him in time and as he had to attend this court at the request of the petitioner he could not attend the meeting on the 25th. Altaf Hossain states that the petitioner had no authority to call the meeting under the Articles of Association of the Company and denies that is was a proper meeting. The Company has also received a letter dated the 27th January, 1961 from Manzoor Ahmeds Advocate stalling that Manzoor was a co-sharer in respect of the shares of Mohamed Bashir and requesting the Company to register his name to the extent of his interest therein. A similar letter dated the 29th December 1960 was also received by the Company sometime ago from Manzoor himself. On the 28th January the Company wrote to the petitioners solicitors that her application for registration would be placed before the next meeting of the Board of Directors. The solicitors were also informed that the transfer book of the Company had been closed from the 26th January to the 9th February, 1961 in view of the impending Annual General Meeting. A copy of this letter was sent to the petitioner on the 28th January, 1961 and the petitioner was further informed that the Company had received a lawyers letter raising objections to registration.

4. Altaf Ho















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top