JAYASHREE SHANTARAM VANKUDRE Vs. RAJKAMAL KALAMANDIR PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On December 31, I947, the petitioner and one Shantaram then being wife and husband floated respondent No. I company as a private limited company. The petitioner was registered as a shareholder in respect of 25I ordinary shares (of respondent no. I company) being the subject- matter of this petition. The petitioner and the said Shantaram both continued to act as and were directors of respondent No. I company on July I, I955.

(2.) From the deed of transfer dated June 28, I955, a copy whereof is annexed as exhibit 2 to the affidavit in reply made on behalf of respondednt No. I company, it appears that the petitioner had signed the deed of transfer in respect of these 25I ordinary shares of the company. In the register of shares of respondent No. I company as on July I, I955, these shares were transferred and registered in 4 the name of respondent No.2 From the minutes of the meeting of the directors held on July I, I955, it appears that the petitioner and the said Shantaram were both present at the said meeting and the application for transfer of the shares from the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 was resolved to be accepted and the shares were resolved to be transferred to the name of respondent No.2.

(3.) I understand from counsel that there have been disputes and differences between the petitioner and the said Shantaram since July I, I955. This petition appears to be one of the litigations arising in consequence of such disputes. In paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner has referred to a suit which she has filed against respondent No. I company and the said Shantaram. In the written- statement in that suit the minutes of the meeting of the directors held on July I, I955, were referred to and annexed. It is the petitioner's case that she was never present at such meeting and that no such meeting of directors was held on July I,I955. The petitioner's contention is that the minutes are fabricated for the purpose of depriving the petitioner of the shares in question and of her position as a director of respondent No. I company. The petitioner denies having at any time executed a deed of transfer of the kind which is annexed as exhibit 2 to the affidavit in reply made on behalf of respondent No. I company. The petitioner, however, does not deny the signature of the deed of transfer. The petitioner's case is that the contents of the deed of transfer which bears her signature are forged and fabricated. In the affidavit in reply made on behalf of respondent no. I company all these allegations are denied.