CLL_Art583 - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers NCLT to Rescue of Purchaser : Provisions of Companies Act to Apply on Banking Companies as no inconsistency exists S. Swaminathan Judgment in Kamlesh Kalidas Shah v. State Bank of India 2018 TaxPub (CL) 96 (NCLT-Mum) delineates that where no remedy is prescribed to the shareholder in case of unjust refusal to register transfer of securities etc. under one statute, it does not mean that the aggrieved is remediless. Right can be availed of under other statute having consistent provisions. The same has been outlined in this write-up. 1. Introduction State Bank of India (Respondent) being a party to the petition is established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955(SBI Act, 1955). The provisions of SBI are akin to the provisions of the Companies Act, particularly when the procedure for allotment of shares, issuance of shares, transfer of shares and other such procedures are involved. And once section 1(4)(c) of the Companies Act has prescribed that the provisions of the Act, shall apply to Banking Companies, then it is mandatory to follow all such provisions as enshrined under the Companies Act, 2013 Also, as there is no inconsistency in the provisions of the Companies Act and that of the SBI Act, where no remedy is prescribed to the shareholder in case of unjust refusal to register transfer, etc., aggrieved person has a right to appeal under section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013. The facts in question and the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the case of Kamlesh Kalidas Shah v. State Bank of India 2018 TaxPub (CL) 96 (NCLT-Mum) are mentioned hereunder: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers

NCLT to Rescue of Purchaser : Provisions of Companies Act to Apply on Banking Companies as no inconsistency exists

S. Swaminathan

Judgment in Kamlesh Kalidas Shah v. State Bank of India 2018 TaxPub (CL) 96 (NCLT-Mum) delineates that where no remedy is prescribed to the shareholder in case of unjust refusal to register transfer of securities etc. under one statute, it does not mean that the aggrieved is remediless. Right can be availed of under other statute having consistent provisions. The same has been outlined in this write-up.

1. Introduction

State Bank of India (Respondent) being a party to the petition is established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955(SBI Act, 1955). The provisions of SBI are akin to the provisions of the Companies Act, particularly when the procedure for allotment of shares, issuance of shares, transfer of shares and other such procedures are involved. And once section 1(4)(c) of the Companies Act has prescribed that the provisions of the Act, shall apply to Banking Companies, then it is mandatory to follow all such provisions as enshrined under the Companies Act, 2013 Also, as there is no inconsistency in the provisions of the Companies Act and that of the SBI Act, where no remedy is prescribed to the shareholder in case of unjust refusal to register transfer, etc., aggrieved person has a right to appeal under section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013. The facts in question and the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the case of Kamlesh Kalidas Shah v. State Bank of India 2018 TaxPub (CL) 96 (NCLT-Mum) are mentioned hereunder: