Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Shri Arvindh P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel, while opposing the company petitions submitted: There are no pleadings to the effect that the shares have been transferred to the trust before its creation, in the absence of which, the petitioner cannot put forth any discrepancies in creation of the trust at the time of making oral submissions. Nevertheless, it is clear from the recitals of the trust deed dated 18.10.2001 that the settlor has prior to the execution of the deed of trust handed over to the trustee an amount of Rs. 10,000/-for the benefit of the petitioner. Furthermore, under the general law of trusts, a trust may be declared in writing or, if it concerned movable property, orally by words of mouth. There are two varieties of trusts - (i) written trusts and (ii) oral trusts. The oral trust has been recognized by the Income Tax Act. Section 5 of the Trust Act defines the oral trust. The petitioner along with his mother and brother has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 1892/2001 on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining Mahendra Kumar Agarwal from alienating their properties inclusive of the impugned shares. The petitioner and his brother have filed yet another civil suit in January, 2002 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition of the Hindu Undivided Family properties. There are several other litigations between the family members of the petitioner. In these proceedings, the transfer of shares has been impugned by the petitioner and thereby, the petitioner has knowledge of the transfer of shares. In view of this, the present company petition filed in January, 2003 is clearly barred by limitation. The company petition filed out of personal vendetta is an abuse of process of law. Though the petitioner attained majority on the date of filing of the company petition, yet, the petitioner's mother, being power of attorney holder has initiated the present proceedings. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, with a view to prevent disposal of the impugned shares by the petitioner's mother, created the trust and thereafter transferred the impugned shares in favour of the trust for the exclusive benefit of the petitioner. Shri Datar, learned Senior Counsel, in order to substantiate his client's apprehension made a reference to the civil appeal Nos. 6499-6500/2005 filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions against the petitioner's mother for not renouncing or alienating in favour of third party, bonus or right of shares of six lakh shares of M/s Gati Limited. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, while transferring the shares has taken care of the interests of the petitioner. The petitioner was holding 6,00,000 shares in M/s Gati Limited (C.P. No. 2/2003) and when the Company came out with the rights issue. the trustees subscribed in the interest of the petitioner for 3,00,000 shares upon which the petitioner's holding stands increased to 9,00,000 shares in the Company. All dividends in respect of the impugned shares would go to the trust and for the benefit of the petitioner. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal honestly felt that the trust would be safe in protecting the interest of the petitioner. The trustees do not derive any benefit. The petitioner does not suffer any prejudice on account of the transfer of impugned shares to the trust for his exclusive benefit. Even otherwise, the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Trusts Act is free to obtain back the shares for himself, thereby exercising full control over them. The petitioner is at present studying in USA and all his expenses are being funded by Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, thereby taking care of the interests of his son. The petitioner is the sole beneficiary under the trust excepting that the noting rights are controlled by the trustees. The plea of the petitioner that the trust has been created for fraudulent purpose lacks details and cannot be sustained. Under Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act, it is only when a person creating the trust is a minor, permission of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction is required, whereas in the instant matter, the trust was not created by or on behalf of a minor and, therefore, the trust created by the petitioner for the benefit of the petitioner is valid. There are a large number of private trusts validly created without the permission of the court. The Supreme Court in T.A.V. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (supra), found that the trust was created by the minors not complying with the requirement of Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act and, therefore, it was declared as invalid. Thus, this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. There is no bar under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, for the natural guardian of a Hindu minor either for creating a trust or transferring any shares to such trust. Section 8(3) of the said Act stipulates that any disposal of the immovable property by natural guardian in contravention of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. In view of this, the sale deed, at the most on this ground can be treated only a voidable document and as far as voidable document, it is only a civil court has jurisdiction to grant the relief of cancellation of the sale deed as held in Vishram Singh v. District Judge, Etawah  . Furthermore, any contentious issue in relation to the legality or validity of a trust and whether such trust is beneficial to the minor cannot be raised before the CLB, but will have to be determined only by a competent court of law. In the present proceedings, the CLB is concerned whether the transfer of shares is for the petitioner's benefit and not in violation of any law. The petitioner has not so far challenged before any civil court the validity of the trust created by Mahendra Kumar Agarwal for the benefit of either the petitioner or his brother. The scope of Section 111 is restricted to a summary enquiry. If the very title to the holding of shares is challenged, such dispute will not be adjudicated in a summary proceeding. It is only the rights and liabilities which arise out of the provisions of the Companies Act, which can be enquired into in a company petition, but not the creation or validity of the trust as held by the Delhi High Court, while considering the scope of Section 155 (now Section 111) of the Act in The Public Trustee v. Rajeshwar Tyagi AIR 1972 DELHI 302. The High Court of Punjab in S. Bhagat Singh v. The Piar Bus Service Ltd. , while considering the scope of Section 38 of the Companies Act, 1913, which is analogus to Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Section 111) concluded that the object was to provide a summary remedy in non-controversial matters or in matters where a quick decision was necessary in order to obviate an irrepairable injury to a party. This provision was not intended for settling controversies necessitating a regular investigation. When serious disputes are involved, the proper forum for their adjudication is a civil court. The High Court of Punjab, while dealing with scope of Section 155 (now Section 111) in Smt. Soma Vati Devi Chand v. Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd.  held that the remedy provided by that section is summary, which can be invoked in non-controversial matters requiring quick decision. This section is not meant to be used for deciding disputes requiring investigation. In the case of a dispute of complicated nature, necessitating a regular investigation, Section 111 ought not to be allowed to be used and the party concerned should be directed to proceed by way of a regular suit. Thus, the controversial question whether the transfer of shares to the trust is beneficial to the petitioner or not cannot be settled by the CLB. All the 16,000 shares in relation to M/s Giri Road Lines Private Limited (C.P.No.6 of 2003), being the subject matter of the transfer deed dated 28th March are still in the name of M/s Grow Well Commercials and Trading Private Limited. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. In these circumstances, the company petitions are liable to be dismissed, by which no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

Sub-section (4) of Section 111 provides, inter-alia, that if the name of any person is, without sufficient cause, entered in the register of members of a company, the person aggrieved, or any member of the company, or the company, may apply to the CLB for rectification of the register. In this context, the grievances of the petitioner that the name of the trust has been, without sufficient cause and fraudulently, entered in the register of members of the Companies and that the impugned transfers are in violation of the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act must be examined. This Board in its decision in Tracstar Investments Limited v. Gordon Woodroff Limited (supra), while examining the import of the words "sufficient cause" as used in Section 111(4)(a)(i) concluded that statutory violations or fraudulent or malafide acts would constitute sufficient cause, rendering the transfer of shares invalid. The Delhi High Court in The Public Trustee v. Rajeshwar Tyagi (supra), while examining the scope of Section 155 (now Section 111) held that it is only the rights and the liabilities which arise out of the provisions of the Companies Act, which can be inquired into in a company petition. The legality or validity of a trust created by a company, if challenged, will have to be determined only by a suit in the civil court Therefore, the CLB is not the competent forum for either questioning the validity of the trust in the light of Section 4 of the Indian Trusts Act, which speaks of the purpose of creation of trusts or rigidity of its clauses elaborated by learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the light of Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act, a trust created by or on behalf of a minor without obtaining the prior sanction of a competent civil court is not a trust in the eye of law. It has to be borne in mind that the trust in question has been created by Mahendra Kumar Agarwal for the benefit of the petitioner, more particularly with the view of preserving and protecting the properties and assets belonging to the petitioner and his family. The decision of the Apex Court in T.A.V. Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) holding that the trust created by the minors without complying with the requirement of Section 7, viz. without the permission of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction is invalid, has no application to the facts of the present case. It is on record that the deed of trust has been created on 18.10.2001 for the benefit of the petitioner, the recitals of which unequivocally show that the settlor namely, Mahendra Kumar Agarwal has prior to the execution of the deed of trust handed over to the trustees an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in cash, being corpus of the trust. Under the general law of trusts, a trust may be written or oral. The oral trust is recognized, as rightly pointed out by Shri Datar, learned Senior Counsel, by the Income Tax Act. Section 5 of the Indian Trust Act defines trust of movable property thus: "No trust in relation to movable property is valid unless declared as specified therein, or unless the ownership of the property is transferred to the trustee". Therefore, the transfer of shares in M/s TCI High Ways Private Limited; M/s Gati Intellect Systems Limited and M/s Giri Road Lines Private Limited, prior to creation of the trust by virtue of the deed of trust on 18.10.2001, cannot be challenged by the petitioner.