SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) The short point arises in this appeal is whether the Company Law Board lacked authority in receiving the petition under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013 beyond the period prescribed in sub-section 4 thereof.
(2.) The facts limited to the aforesaid issue are summarized below.
(3.) Rohinten Daddy Mazda became the owner of 20 shares of the appellant Company by a grant of probate on 30th November, 1990. The petitioner on 1st March, 2013 applied to the company for transfer of 20 shares. On 30th April, 2013 the Company refused transmission of the said shares. The respondent issued a legal notice on 18th July, 2013 threatening legal action. Sections 111 and 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 stand replaced on 12th September, 2013 by insertion of new Sections 58 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013. On 12th December, 2013, Mr. Mazda forwarded a copy of petition under Section 111A(2) of the Act to the appellant Company. Thereafter Sri Mazda presented the petition before the Company Law Board on 13th December, 2013. On 16th December, 2013, a letter was issued by the Bench Officer to rectify the defects and submitted further documents.;