Ghatge Patil Automobiles Private ... vs Kiran Jaykumar Patil
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 205 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order disposes of the appeal by consent and records no reasoning of its own on any point of law. Its only substantive directions rest on the parties' agreement that the share transfer documents be submitted in the manner prescribed by Section 56 and within the time limit under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013, and on the Tribunal's direction that colour photocopies of the original certificates be filed on record with a right to report any tampering. These are procedural directions accepted by consent, not a determination of any legal question. NO_RATIO: The appeal was disposed of by consent, and the order contains no reasoning or determination of a legal principle beyond recording the parties' agreement to comply with Sections 56 and 58 and an interim documentary safeguard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ghatge Patil Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Kiran Jaykumar Patil & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Yahya B., Ms. Meghna Rao, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Mr. Shivam Shukla, Mr. Pranav Saigal, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 04.09.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated
24.03.2025 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench in Company
Petition/149/2024. The impugned order notes the Respondent to file an
application for transfer of 5,000 shares being gifted to her within a period of
1 week from the date of the order along with entire set of documents, duly
notarized to the appellant company and the appellant company may take a
decision on such application within 3 weeks thereafter and if the parties are
not satisfied, they may approach the Tribunal.
2. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant the documents
needs to be submitted only in the manner suggested in Section 56 and within
the time limit provided under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits he has no objection
to the compliances of aforesaid Sections. However, he apprehends in case the
original certificate is handed over to the appellant company, it may not tamper
with documents. Let them file a colour photo copy of such original documents -2-
and be also filed as a matter of record with the Ld. NCLT and in case of any
alleged tampering, the Respondent may report to the Ld. NCLT.
4. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, are closed.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
R.N./Manu
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free