JAYSHREE SHANTARAM VANKUDRE Vs. RAJKAMAL KALAMANDIAR PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31-12-1947, the petitioner and one Shantaram then being wife and husband floated the first respondent company as a private limited company. The petitioner was registered as a shareholder in respect of 251 ordinary shares of the 1st reqpondent company being the subject matter of this petition. The petitioner and the said Shantaram both continued to act as and were directors of the 1st respondent company on 1-7-1955.

(2.) From the deed of transfer dated 28-6-1955 a copy whereof is annexed as Ex. 2 to the affidavit in reply made on behalf of the 1st respondent compan, it appears that the petitioner had signed the deed of transfer in respect of these 251 ordinary shares of the company. In the register of shares of the 1st respondent company as 1-7-1955 these shares were transferred and registered in the name of the 2nd respondent. From the minutes of the meeting of the directors held on 1-7-1955 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 petitioner to the second respondent was resolved to be accepted and the shares were resolved to be transferred to the name of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) I understand from counsel that there have been disputes and differences between the petitioner and the said Shantaram from 1-7-1955. This petition appears to be one of the litigations arising in consequences of such disputes. In para 7 of the petition the petitioner has referred to a suit which she has filed against the 1st respondent company and the said Shantaram. In the written-statement in that suit the minutes of the meeting of the directors held on 1-7-1955 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 1-7-1955. 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 the 1st respondent company. The petitioner denies having at any time executed a deed of transfer of the kind which is annexed as Ex. 2 to the affidavit in reply made on behalf of the 1st respondent company; the petitioner however does not deny her signature on the deed of transfer. The petitioner's case is that the deed of transfer which bears her signature is a fabricated document. In the affidavit in reply made on behalf of the 1st respondent company all these allegations are denied.