ANEESH SEIGELL Vs. SIEMENS INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), seeking directions from this Bench to rectify the register of members of Respondent No. 1 -company in the name of the Petitioner and pay all the benefits accrued thereon.

(2.) SHRI B.B. Parekh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted the brief facts which necessitated to file the present petition. Late Mr. Baldev Enand was a shareholder of Siemens India Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) and held 112 shares having the following details:

(3.) IT is submitted that late Baldev Enand was a permanent resident of the USA and had been residing there since he left India in the year 1982. Before he died on 24th January, 2006, he had been in nursing care for a long time. Therefore, the Petitioner issued a letter dated 23rd May, 2005, to the company secretary, informing them that Mr. Baldev Enand had left India in the year 1982 and had not been residing in Delhi. The late Mr. Baldev Enand is the grand uncle of the Petitioner. The Petitioner made a request to the Respondents to transfer the shares gifted by Mr. Baldev Enand in his name. Since the Petitioner did not receive any response, he sent a reminder letter dated 10th June, 2005, to the Respondent -company. The Petitioner received letter dated 14th June, 2005, from Respondent No. 2, the share transfer agents of Respondent No. 1 -company, stating that the shares would be transferred on the basis of share transfer forms. The Petitioner sent reminder by e -mail in response to which he received an e -mail which was followed by letter dated 30th June, 2005, from Respondent No. 2 stating that Mr. Baldev Enand held 140 shares (and not 112 shares) in the company and the same could be transferred on the basis of share transfer forms after affixing the stamp duty prescribed, by law. On 6th July, 2005, the Petitioner met Mr. Baldev Enand at the nursing care facility where he was residing and got the requisite forms signed and attested. On 15th July, 2005, the Petitioner's father sent e -mail to Respondent No. 2 informing them that the company had sent the certificates for 28 shares and that the Petitioner would be bringing the necessary documents from USA. On 28th July, 2005, the Petitioner sent letter to Respondent No. 2 enclosing the share transfer forms duly stamped, the certificates for remaining 28 shares, the application form for changing the signatures duly signed by Mr. Baldev Enand, the letter was received by Respondent No. 2 on 6th August, 2005. But on 23rd August, 2005, Respondent No. 2 surprisingly sent duplicate procedure forms to Mr. Baldev Enand. The Petitioner sent e -mail to Respondent No. 2 informing that his uncle was not in a condition to receive the documents. Also he sent a letter dated 1st September, 2005, lodging formal protest with them. The Petitioner stated that since he was the transferee of the said shares, the issue of duplicate shares numbering 112 should be done in favour of the transferee. The Petitioner offered to issue an indemnity bond to the company to protect them from any hostile claim.