Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Vemulapalli Sai Prameela & Ors vs Vijaya Sai Poultries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal11 November 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with an order refusing a request to verify the signatures on a share transfer form and a resignation letter, holding that in a petition under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, where the allegation of transfer of shares is one component of a claim of operational mismanagement that must be established on the merits, the question whether a signature was genuinely affixed may be determined by the Tribunal at the hearing of the petition itself, by comparison with signatures the petitioners have already placed on the record, rather than by a separate prior verification.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) No. 319 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Vemulapalli Sai Prameela & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

M/S. VIJAYA SAI POULTRIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...Respondents

Present : Though present but not marked attendance

ORDER

11.11.2019 - The Appellant / Petitioner filed an application Under Rule

11 of the NCLT Rules read with Section 421 of the Companies Act with

prayer to examine the signature of petitioner no. 2 to 5 and the letter of

resignation. The NCLT Amravati Bench by impugned order dated 12th

September, 2019 rejected the prayer for verification of signature of the

Appellant / Petitioner 2 to 5.

From the Record, we find that petition u/s 241 and 242 of the

Companies Act is pending before the Tribunal.

The allegation is that the Transfer Form belong to them have not been

signed by them. The Tribunal having noticed that the matter relates to

operation and mis-management and transfer of shares is one of the

allegation related to operation and mismanagement has rejected claim for

verification. ....contd.

2

Having heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant (Petitioner) we are of

the view that the Appellants are required to establish that there is a

operational mis-management by one or other Respondent, who are

Members of the Company. The rest of the allegations are to be proved in the

petition u/s 241 and 242. Therefore, this was in the stage for verification of

the signature of the Appellant(s), they have already put their signature in

the petition which can be noticed by the Tribunal to find out whether the

signature in the shares have been given by one or other Appellant /

Petitioner if so required.

In the aforesaid background, we are not inclined to interfere in the

impugned order. The Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

ss/sk

Company Appeal (AT) No. 319 of 2019

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