L RANIAMMAL Vs. SRI SHANMUGANANDA BUS SERVICE P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE company petition is filed under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") seeking directions from this Bench to direct the respondent-company to forthwith transmit the 1,125 shares in the name of the petitioner and for further consequential directions.

(2.) Shri Shiv Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that (late) K. R. Chinnaiah Naidu, father of the petitioner, was promoted the respondent-company and was holding 9,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in the respondent-company. He expired on November 27, 1978, leaving behind his wife, four sons and three daughters as legal heirs. According to legal heirship certificate dated January 13, 1979, issued by the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, the petitioner is shown as SI. No. 2 in the said certificate, which is annexed as A3 to the company petition. The shares which are remaining in the name of (late) K. R. Chinnaiah Naidu, by operation of law, have to be devolved among eight legal heirs equally in the ratio of 1,125 shares each. Though company is well aware of the death of the father of the petitioner and even after submitting the legal heirship certificate the shares of the deceased father have not been transmitted to the legal heirs. He submitted that the respondent-company did not transmit nor initiated any steps for transmission. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2003, 4,500 shares were transmitted to Shri K. C. Ramachandran, who is one of the legal heirs and the younger brother of the petitioner. However, the remaining 4,500 shares were kept in the name of (late) K. R. Chinnaiah Naidu. The respondent-company had wilfully neglected to transmit the remaining shares to other descendents of (late) K. R. Chinnaiah Naidu. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner vide her letter dated January 5, 2006, intimated the respondent-company that she is entitled for 1,125 shares and requested the company to transmit the shares in her name and to issue share certificates to that effect. In spite of her written request, the company has neither taken steps to transmit the shares nor replied to her letter. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Bench seeking reliefs as prayed for in the petition.

(3.) SHRI Siva Prakash, learned Counsel while replying submitted that the petitioner claimed one-eighth share of the family properties mentioned in the schedule therein and items 146 and 148 in the said suit pertaining to the joint family property purchased out of the family funds. He submitted that the petitioner need not to withdraw the claim in the said suit as the respondent-company is not a party to the suit and the suit itself is for partition among the family members. Further, the pendency of the suit does not in any way hinder the respondent-company from transmitting the shares to the petitioner, she being rightful legal heirs and entitled for the same. Therefore, he prayed the Bench to allow the petition and for the direction as prayed for.