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

2015 Supreme(SC) 906

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
JAI MAHAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJKUMAR DEVRAJ & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7914 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.4384 OF 2013) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.7915 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.4903 OF 2013) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.7919 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.13752 OF 2013) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.7916 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.13756 OF 2013) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.7917 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.14309 OF 2013) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.7918 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.14322 OF 2013)
Decided On : 23-09-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
When the shares have been validly transferred, CLB cannot refuse rectification of share register.

Headnote:Companies Act, 1956 – Section 111 – Rectification of register of shares – LMJS holding shares – Executing Will in favour of his mother, GD – Succession certificate in respect of estates of LMJS issued in favour of GD and DR jointly – GD executing transfer deeds in respect of shares in favour of DR group in her life time and communicating the same to the Company – Application for temporary injunction filed by UD group declined by trial court finding no prima facie case against succession certificate – CLB rejecting claim of DR group for rectification of share register on ground of the case involving complex questions of fact and law – High Court rightly reversed CLB order – CLB had no jurisdiction to reject claim of DR group. (Para 22, 23)

       (1998) 7 SCC 105; (2006) 6 SCC 94; 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 656; (1967) 3 SCR 84; (2010) 11 SCC 557; (1991) 3 SCC 136; (1993) 2 SCC 507 – Distinguished

       (1970) 2 SCC 550; 1999 (2) Calcutta Law Times 264; AIR 1966 SC 489 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The question raised in these appeals relates to the scope of power under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, to direct rectification in the share register of a company.

       Late Maharaja Jagat Singh (“LMJS”) held shares in M/s. Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ram Bagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sawai Madhopur Lodge Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. S.M.S. Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. He died on 05th February, 1997 leaving behind a Will dated 23rd June, 1996 in favour of his mother Gayatri Devi (“GD”). Succession certificate dated 19th February, 2009 was issued by the District Judge, Jaipur jointly in favour of GD and DR Group. GD executed transfer deed dated 27th April, 2009 in favour of DR Group. She also executed Will dated 10th May, 2009 in favour of DR Group. She died on 29th September, 2009. Vide letter dated 15th July, 2009, DR Group claimed transmission and transfer of shares in their favour on the basis of succession certificate dated 19th February, 2009 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur (Civil), transfer deed dated 27th April, 2009 executed by their grand mother Gayitri Devi (“GD”) along with revalidation of the letter issued by the Registrar of Companies.

       The application was not accepted by the Company.

       The DR Group filed appeals before the Company Law Board (“CLB”).

       Urvashi Devi, grand daughter of husband of GD from another wife (“UD Group”) filed application for impleadment stating that the succession certificate was a nullity. She accepted validity of Will dated 23rd June, 1996 executed in favour of GD by LMJS but contested the succession certificate. Urvashi Devi, Prithvi Raj and Jai Singh also sought transfer of shares in their favour claiming as heirs of GD. It was submitted that GD could not enter into any settlement contrary to the Will dated 23rd June, 1996. Further contention was that she died intestate on 29th September, 2009 and that DG has been disinherited by LMJS in his Will dated 23rd June, 1996.

       UD Group also raised the dispute of succession to the estate of GD.

       The CLB dismissed the appeals filed by the DR Group

       DR Group moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 10F of the Companies Act. UD Group also filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeals of DR Group and dismissed the appeal filed by the UD Group.

       Finding of the Court:

       DR group was entitled to its claim.

       Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.

JUDGMENT

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave granted. The question raised in these appeals relates to the scope of power under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, to direct rectification in the share register of a company. The question has to be examined in the context of correctness of the view taken in the impugned order passed by the High Court directing rectification at the instance of Respondent No.1-Rajkumar Devraj and Respondent No.2-Rajkumari Lalitya Kumari (the “DR Group”), who are the son and daughter respectively of late Maharaja Jagat Singh (“LMJS”) .

2. LMJS held shares in M/s. Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ram Bagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sawai Madhopur Lodge Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. S.M.S. Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. He died on 05th February, 1997 leaving behind a Will dated 23rd June, 1996 in favour of his mother Gayatri Devi (“GD”). Succession certificate dated 19th February, 2009 was issued by the District Judge, Jaipur jointly in favour of GD and DR Group. GD executed transfer deed dated 27th April, 2009 in favour of DR Group. She also executed Will dated 10th May, 2009 in favour of DR Group. She died on 29th September, 2009. Vide letter dated 15th July, 2009, DR Group claimed transmission and transfer of shares in their favour on the basis of succession certificate dated 19th February, 2009 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur (Civil), transfer deed dated 27th April, 2009 executed by their grand mother Gayitri Devi (“GD”) along with revalidation of the letter issued by the Registrar of Companies.

3. The application having not been accepted by the Company, the DR Group filed appeals before the Company Law Board (“CLB”), New Delhi. Urvashi Devi, grand daughter of husband of GD from another wife (“UD Group”) filed application for impleadment stating that the succession certificate was a nullity. She accepted validity of Will dated 23rd June, 1996 executed in favour of GD by LMJS but contested the succession certificate. It was her further case that DR Group had no right of succession in view of Will dated 23rd June, 1996 and they were also not heirs of GD as LMJS was adopted in another family. Further stand was that since at the instance of GD, proceedings were stayed, succession certificate could not be granted even at her instance. Stay granted by the High Court was in a petition seeking consolidation of a probate case and succession certificate. Section 370 of Succession Act was also invoked. It was also submitted that the settlement which was the basis of succession certificate was not genuine. Her Will dated 10th May, 2009 was also contested. Urvashi Devi, Prithvi Raj and Jai Singh also sought transfer of shares in their favour claiming as heirs of GD. It was submitted that GD could not enter into any settlement contrary to the Will dated 23rd June, 1996. Further contention was that she died intestate on 29th September, 2009 and that DG has been disinherited by LMJS in his Will dated 23rd June, 1996.

4. Suit No.32 of 2010 was also filed by the UD Group before the District Judge, Jaipur, raising the dispute of succession to the estate of GD. In the said suit, CMA No.20 of 2010 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for temporary injunction. The application was dismissed by detailed order dated 28th July, 2011. In the said application, all the issues raised by the UD Group were examined prima facie, including validity of succession certificate dated 19th February, 2009. The Court on considering the rival submissions held :

“In such condition seeing the said entire facts and circumstances and the documents submitted no prima facie case is made out by the applicants for stopping the implementation of the order dated 19.02.2009 passed in S.A. No.134 of 1998 by the Learned District Judge, Jaipur till the disposal of the suit.”

5. The CLB dismissed the appeals filed by the DR Group vide order dated 16th March, 2011. The Board framed following questions for consideration :

“(i) Whether


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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