Mr. Rebates

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Nominee, not heir, to get shares after holder’s death: HC

 Apr 21, 2010
MUMBAI: A nominee has the right to the shares after the original shareholder’s death and not the deceased’s heirs, Bombay High Court has ruled.

Dismissing the application of a widow who sought permission to sell the shares belonging to her late husband, Justice Roshan Dalvi held that she had no right to do so since she was not the nominee. The nominee was her late husband’s nephew.

"The Companies Act sets out that the nomination has to be made during the lifetime of the holder, according to legal procedures. If that procedure is followed, the nominee would become entitled to all the rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons (following the death of the shareholder)," said the judge. The court said that Harsha Kokate would have no rights over the shares owned by her deceased husband Nitin Kokate. Harsha had married Nitin in December 2004. Their marital life was short-lived as Nitin passed away in 2007. A year later Harsha moved the HC seeking to sell the shares in Nitin’s demat account with Saraswat Cooperative Bank. It was found that a year before his death Nitin had nominated his nephew in respect of the shares.

Harsha’s lawyers argued that she was entitled to the shares as she was her late husband’s heir and legal representative. The lawyers also pointed out to the nomination provisions relating to insurance papers as well as shares of a flat in a cooperative housing society. Under the provisions of the Insurance Act as well as the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, nomination only makes a nominee a trustee for the insurances policy or shares of the flat, argued the lawyer. The nominee holds the policy/shares in trust for the estate of the deceased, but has no right over them.

"Since Nitin died intestate (without leaving a will), his widow would be entitled to the shares to the exclusion of the nominee," claimed Harsha’s advocate.

The HC disagreed. "The provisions (relating to insurance and housing societies) are made merely to give a valid discharge to the insurance company or the cooperative society without vesting the ownership rights in the insurance policy or the membership rights in the Society upon such nominee," said the judge, while pointing out that the provisions of the Companies Act and Depositories Act, that govern equity shares are different. Both these laws say that the shares would be vested with the nominee on the death of the share holder.

"Upon such nomination, therefore, all the rights incidental to ownership would follow. This would include the right to transfer the shares, pledge the shares or hold the shares," said the judge.

Filing false case against in-laws is cruelty: HC + Judgement

View full Judgement of this case below

 Apr 17, 2010

MUMBAI: Filing a false criminal case against the husband and in-laws for harassment amounts to cruelty and is ground for divorce, the Bombay high court. "Humiliation... that is caused on account of arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and relatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the husband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground," said a division bench of Justices A P Deshpande and R P Sondurbaldota while granting divorce to a Pune resident.

Dyanesh Soparkar and Lata (names changed) had an arranged marriage in March 2001 as per Hindu rites and they have a daughter. According to Soparkar, on the wedding night itself Lata called him blind for wearing spectacles and complained that she was given to understand that he earned a higher salary than what he actually got. The couple had frequent quarrels, according to Soparkar, over his wife's insistence that they stay separately.

Dyanesh filed for divorce in June 2003 and a month later Lata filed a case for dowry harassment (Section 498 A of the IPC). She named Dyanesh, his mother and three other relatives. They were arrested and sent to custody. Two years later, a magistrate's court acquitted them, saying there was no evidence that Lata's family were coerced to pay Rs 50,000 as dowry.

The family court dismissed Dyanesh's plea for divorce saying that a single complaint filed by the wife could constitute cruelty. Dyanesh moved the HC in appeal. His lawyers claimed that the arrest and detention of the family members and Dyanesh's near relations in a false case "has caused him agony".

The HC agreed with Dyanesh's contention. "One thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had filed a false case not only against her husband and mother-in-law but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations," said the judges, adding, "It is obvious that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his family members, Lata has treated Dyanesh with utmost mental cruelty and he has suffered agony."



Ajay Ashok Khedkar .... ..... ..... ..... Appellant.


Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar..... .... ..... ....Respondent.

Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.
Mr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent.

Date:12th April, 2010.

4. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution
utterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant. The
Judicial Magistrate has recorded categoric finding that the
complainant’s own testimony falsifies the prosecution case that the
complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused
persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their
unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/. The Magistrate has totally
disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted
the accused persons. On a careful reading of the judgment
rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one
thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had
filed a false case not only against her husband and motherinlaw
but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations. It is obvious
that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his
family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost
mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony. It will not be
out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was
calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to
the divorce petition filed by the husband. The appellant had filed
divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by
the respondentwife on 11.7.03.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
and his family members including ladies who did not stay along
with the appellant were arrested and detained causing utmost
humiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant. This
solitary incidence would itself constitute mental cruelty even if
other circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial
court has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition.

Without deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of
the clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct
of the respondent is good enough to draw an inference that
respondent has caused utmost mental pain and suffering which
constitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant
is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

View Full Judgement here: