C MATHEW Vs. COCHIN STOCK EXCHANGE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI C. Mathew, the petitioner herein, has filed this petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), seeking rectification of the register of members of the Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company") so as to show that the petitioner holds 10 shares in the company.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is one of the original signatories to the memorandum of association of the company incorporated in 1978. At that time he had taken one share in the company along with 13 other signatories who were also holding one share each. In the year 1980, all the 14 signatories to the memorandum were allotted additional nine equity shares each in the company. Thus, the petitioner came to possess 10 shares for which a share certificate was also issued to him. He left for Zambia in the year 1984 and when he returned to India in 1994 he came to know that the company had cancelled the 9 additional shares issued to him and now he is shown in the register of members as holding only one share. He has also relied on the fact of allotment of nine additional shares in the annual reports for the years 1981 to 1984. His efforts to get the register rectified through correspondence with the company have failed and, accordingly, he has filed this petition seeking relief in this regard.

(3.) WHEN the matter was heard Shri R. Murari, advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had gone to Zambia in the year 1984 before the receipt of the alleged letter intimating of the cancellation and that when he returned to India in 1994 he had been corresponding with the company after knowing that the shares were cancelled. Therefore, as far as his knowledge is concerned, it was only in 1994, and he has filed the petition in the year 1995 without loss of time and as such, the objection of the respondent in regard to limitation should not be considered. Further, according to him, the Limitation Act is not applicable here and as long as the petitioner has given sufficient reasons for the delay, the petition should not be dismissed on this score alone.