AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thattathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This appeal is against the order issued by the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai on 15th October, 2007 in C.P. Nos. 793 and 794 of 2006.
K.C. Thomas, a share holder of two companies in relation to which the C.Ps. were filed, died leaving behind his legal representatives. His son, Sri. Thomas Chacko, applied to the Company Law Board for an order directing to register in his favour, the transmission of shares held by late K.C. Thomas at the time of his death.
K.C. Mathew, the 2nd appellant before us, is the brother of late K.C. Thomas. He contended before the Company Law Board that late K.C. Thomas had executed a Will and succession would be only on the basis of that and therefore, in the meeting of the respective Board of Directors of respective Companies, it was resolved that the Will be acted upon and the shares held by late K.C. Thomas be transferred in favour of the legatees.
Fundamentally, the question of upholding the Will is a matter within testamentary jurisdiction. The Company Law Board had not gone into it. The transfer of shares ordered in favour of the non-testamentary heirs is on the basis of non-testamentary succession depending upon the operation of law at the point of time of the demise of K.C. Thomas. Obviously, therefore any person propounding the so-called Will of late K.C. Thomas can establish it and seek relief in testamentary jurisdiction.
With the aforesaid, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned order of the Company Law Board.
In the result, leaving open the question of Will to be dealt with in competent testamentary jurisdiction and preserving all contentions of the right of parties in that regard, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.