38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, February 15, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

NCLAT Directs SC To Register Transfer Of Shares To Investors' Legal Heirs, Rs. 5 Lakhs Penalty Imposed On DLF As Costs For Harassing Poor Investors

By LawStreet News Network      21 January, 2020 10:01 AM      0 Comments
NCLAT Directs SC To Register Transfer Of Shares To Investors' Legal Heirs, Rs. 5 Lakhs Penalty Imposed On DLF As Costs For Harassing Poor Investors

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on January 19, 2020 decided in favour of the respondents in the DLF case who are the investors legal heirs. The tribunal directed that the appellant company Delhi Land and Finance (DLF) Ltd. should register a transfer of 60,000 shares to the deceased shareholders legal heirs. Besides this the tribunal also imposed an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as costs for harassing the poor investors.

The decision was given by a three judge bench. The order came in a petition filed by the DLF company and one of its promoters challenging the order given by the Chandigarh Bench of  National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT in December, 2018 had given similar directions based on theterms of the Letter of Administration issued by the District Judge.

The facts of the case are as follows: Devki Nandan Kaur, father of the respondents held 150 equity shares of  Rs.10 each with the company which were subsequently converted into 6000 equity shares of Rs. 2 each. The father died in 1987. In 2005 the company gave rights issue to all the existing holders. When the deceased shareholders legal heirs claimed the same, the company rejected their claim stating that the company was not informed about the shareholders demise and it exceeded the limitation period. DLF had submitted the same before the appellate court and argued that the convertible debentures on rights basis are not inheritable. The respondents on the other hand submitted that when they approached DLF, the company asked them to procure a court order in their favour for Letter of Admission and to execute the Affidavit cum-Indemnity Bond. The respondent followed the same and got a decree in 2012, however it was rejected by DLF. After which they moved the NCLT.

The bench said We note that the appellant (DLF) is a listed company in real estate and is very well aware of legal formalities. By insisting affidavit and indemnity bond again and again, in spite of Letter of Administration issued clearly establish that the Appellants (DLF and Rajdhani Investments) are harassing the poor investors. It also added that the the act of company deserves a penal action and said A sum of rupees five lakh - costs is imposed on appellants to be deposited with National Defence Fund within 15 days from the date of this orderProof of depositing the same will be submitted to the Registrar of this Appellate Tribunal within a week thereafter".

It even stated that the respondent should pay for the transfer within 15 days of the order and the company should transfer all 60,000 shares within 30 days of receipt of payment. Thus the appellate tribunal rejected the companys submissions and said the company never informed the respondents about the limitation period.

Author: Meher Mansi



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

resignation-on-medical-grounds-attracts-forfeiture-of-pension-service-madras-hc-full-bench
Trending Judiciary
Resignation on Medical Grounds Attracts Forfeiture of Pension Service: Madras HC Full Bench [Read Order]

Madras High Court Full Bench rules resignation on medical grounds leads to forfeiture of past service under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

09 February, 2026 12:16 PM
madras-hc-clarifies-section-37-of-ndps-act-not-applicable-to-acceptance-of-bond-for-appearance
Trending Judiciary
Madras HC Clarifies: Section 37 of NDPS Act Not Applicable to Acceptance of Bond for Appearance [Read Order]

Madras High Court says Section 37 NDPS Act doesn’t apply to acceptance of bond for appearance on summons, as it is distinct from grant of bail.

09 February, 2026 12:20 PM
sc-refers-matter-to-larger-bench-to-resolve-conflicting-judgments-on-third-partys-right-under-under-order-ix-rule-13-cpc
Trending Judiciary
SC Refers Matter To Larger Bench To Resolve Conflicting Judgments On Third Party’s Right Under Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [Read Order]

Supreme Court refers the issue of third party rights under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to a larger bench to resolve conflicting judgments on ex parte decrees.

09 February, 2026 12:35 PM
bombay-sessions-court-grants-bail-in-193-crore-cyber-fraud-case-reaffirms-bail-is-rule-jail-is-exception
Trending Judiciary
Bombay Sessions Court Grants Bail in ₹1.93 Crore Cyber Fraud Case, Reaffirms ‘Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception’ [Read Order]

Bombay Sessions Court grants bail in ₹1.93 crore cyber fraud case, citing right to liberty as investigation is complete and accused not direct beneficiary.

09 February, 2026 04:17 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email