SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. VARDHMAN SPINNING AND GENERAL MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Shri Subhash Chandra, A-79, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-92, under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for rectification of the register of members of the respondent-company, in order to restore 50 equity shares in the name of the petitioner which has been registered in the name of one Shri R. K. Malhotra without any sufficient cause and for consequential orders. The respondent in this petition is Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Jamalpur Awana, Ludhiana-141011 (hereinafter referred to as "the company").

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner by a letter dated February 10, 1990, requested the company to change his specimen signatures in the records of the company. In the meanwhile, on February 8, 1990, the company received an application for transfer of 50 equity shares owned by the petitioner along with an instrument of transfer executed on January 23, 1990, Since the signatures of the petitioner tallied with the specimen signatures available in the records, the transfer of the 50 shares was registered in the books of the company on February 24, 1990, Thereafter, on March 8, 1990, the petitioner instructed the company to stop all transfers of shares registered in his name since he has reported that his share certificates have been lost along with transfer deeds. He also made available to the company on March 16, 1990, a copy of an FIR dated March 14, 1990, regarding the loss of the share certificates. The company by a letter dated March 10, 1990, had intimated that 50 shares of the petitioner have been already transferred in favour of Shri R. K. Malhotra and a photocopy of the transfer deed was also sent by the company to the petitioner, in this connection.

(3.) IN this case, there is only one respondent, namely, the company. The transferee, namely, one R. K. Malhotra, though a relevant party has not been impleaded as a party. However, a copy of the petition was endorsed to the transferee. A reply on his behalf was filed. During the initial hearing it was noticed that the transferee has not been impleaded as a party. The petitioner also did not press for impleading the transferee as a party though we allowed him opportunity for the same and hence the reply on behalf of the transferee was not taken into consideration.