Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. According to Shri R. Shankarnarayanan, learned Counsel, Mahndra Kumar Agarwal and his wife, being the petitioner's parents are not maintaining any cordial relationship, thereby the petitioner's mother left the matrimonial home. The petitioner's mother apprehending that Mahendra Kumar Agarwal would transfer the impugned shares filed during October, 2001 a civil suit in O.S. No. 1892/2001 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained an order of injunction restraining him from transferring the impugned shares, upon which it came to light that Mahendra Kumar Agarwal had already transferred the Shares impugned in the company petitions in favour of the trust, purportedly created for the benefit of the petitioner, by which the petitioner lost the benefit of the shares including dividend thereon. Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 provides that a trust may be created by a person who is competent to contract and with the permission of a competent court of law, by or on behalf of a minor. Furthermore, the trust created by Mahendra Kumar Agarwal without the permission of the court in violation of Section 7(b) is void, in support of which reliance has been placed on the decision of the apex court in T.A.V. Trust v. Commissioner of lncome-Tax  (1999) 236 Comp Cas 788, wherein it was held that the trust created without the permission of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction by on behalf of a minor is not valid. A trust under of Section 4 of the Indian Trust Act may be created for any lawlul purpose and if the purpose is fraudulent, the trust is void. The trust created by Mahendra Kumar Agarwal not being in the best interest of the petitioner, is nothing but subterfuge to take away the rights of the petitioner in respect of the impugned shares by transferring the shares to the trust. The trustees may not act for the benefit of the petitioner and may not subscribe to the rights share as and when issued by the Company. The petitioner's parents are at loggerheads and the petitioner was then a minor under the custody of his mother. When the father is not in actual charge of affairs of the minor either because of agreement between him and the mother of the minor for any other reason is unable to take care of the minor because of his physical and/or mental incapacity, the mother, can act as natural guardian of the minor and all her actions would be valid, as laid down in Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India 1991 (I) CTC 481. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal was not in charge of the affairs of the minor in October 2000 and therefore, could not have acted as the natural guardian of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's father cannot be the natural guardian and can neither transfer the shares held in the name of the petitioner. The motive of Mahendra Kumar Agarwal is that the petitioner's mother should never get any benefit out of the impugned shares in the event of any unforeseen eventuality, which might happen to the petitioner and with this oblique purpose the impugned shares have been transferred to the trust. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal has in the instant cases altered the course of succession by naming the brother of the petitioner as the successor. It is obligatory under Section 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act on the part of a natural guardian to do all acts, which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate. Accordingly, a guardian has the right to transfer the properties belonging to the minor, provided such transfer is either for the benefit of the minor or out of any legal necessity, which is lacking in the present transfer made in favour of the third respondent. While the transfer deed in respect of 50,000 shares of M/s TCI Highways Private Limited is dated 10.10.2001, it bears the seal of the Registrar of Companies as 14.12.2000. However, the trust deed came to be executed only on 18.10.2001. Similarly, the transfer deed in respect of 36,000 shares of M/s Gati Intellect Systems Limited is dated 15.10.2001. The transfer deed in respect of 16,000 shares of Giri Road Lines Private Limited is executed on 28th March. But the year of execution is not mentioned. Thus, the shares have been transferred to the trust before the trust was created and therefore, cannot be valid. The sale consideration is shown in these transfer deeds but has not been credited to the petitioner's account. The entire transactions are malafide and do not pass the test of Section 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Section 27 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 envisages that a guardian of the property of a ward must act as a man of ordinary prudence and that all his acts must be reasonable and proper for the realization, protection or benefit of the property. The trust deed provides that the petitioner is entitled to exercise control over the trust fund and the investments, which shall include the impugned shares, upon the petitioner attaining the age of 35 years, thereby the petitioner has derived no benefit from the impugned transfers. This is violative of the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. The transfer impugned in the company petition having been made by fraud and without sufficient cause and in contravention of Section 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Section 27 of the Guardians and Wards Act and the relevant applicable provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, the CLB in exercise of the powers vested in Section 111(4) and 111A(3), may direct rectification of the register of members by deleting the name of the third respondent and restoring the name of the petitioner. The petitioner attained the age of majority on 19.11.2002, upon which, filed the present company petition within the period of limitation and therefore, the company petitions are not barred by time. Shri Shankaranarayanan, learned Counsel therefore, sought for the reliefs claimed in these company petitions.