Transmission of shares without probate of will
hardik mehta
(Querist) 05 October 2017
This query is : Resolved
Hello,
I am from ahmedabad. My father expired long back leaving a will in the name of my mother.. we had some shares on his sole name which we wanted to transfer on my mother s name.. however on approaching the consultancy service of that share unit, they asked for probate of the will as the value of the shares is more than 2 lac rupees.. my question is whether it is not possible to transfer the share without the probate? I faintly recollect that there is a supreme court directive regarding the same.. kindly advice what should i do?
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 05 October 2017
Will can be executed only after probated by civil court. Nothing less than that.
Guest
(Expert) 05 October 2017
You will have to abide by the requirement of the company to ensure that the shares are transmitted in the hands of a rightful claimant. Supreme Court never issues directives that a judgment of an individual case be treated as the law of land for one and all cases irrespective of the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the other individual cases on case to case basis.
Guest
(Expert) 05 October 2017
You will have to abide by the requirement of the company to ensure that the shares are transmitted in the hands of a rightful claimant. Supreme Court never issues directives that a judgment of an individual case be treated as the law of land for one and all cases irrespective of the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the other individual cases on case to case basis.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 05 October 2017
Fulfill the requirement of the company for transfer of share.
hardik mehta
(Querist) 06 October 2017
Thank you for your response. Sir may i know how much time generally it takes for the probate if documents are clear.thank you
P. Venu
(Expert) 06 October 2017
Ahmadabad is not among the places where a probate is mandatory, You may try to get second opinion.
Guest
(Expert) 06 October 2017
@P.Venu,
The question of the querist was not about the probate of will to be mandatory or not at Ahmedabad. His specific question was the requirement of company to help transmission of shares in whose favour the will persists.
If Shri P. Venu believes that there was any specific directive for the corporate sector not to demand probate from the will holder for the purpose of transmission of shares,, he could well have suggested about the link of that directive or made a copy available to the querist for easy solution to his problem, rather than causing confusion for the querist whether probate is necessary or not for the purpose of such transmission, particularly, when company representative, the consultancy service of the share unit.
Moreover, probate is not banned in any city court of India.
Guest
(Expert) 06 October 2017
@Mr. hardik Mehta,
If you problem is real, you will have to do as per the requirement of the company. However, if you have put an academic query, as it seems to be, you have put that in a very wrong way. That way, you are not likely to get your desired reply to solve your academic query. In that case, you may have to put the question in original, without any adaptation or modification.
P. Venu
(Expert) 06 October 2017
Mr. Jigyasu
I have given the suggestions in the light of my understanding of the issue and the principles and Law applicable thereto. Anyone, the querist included, certainly are entitled to correct me on facts, law or principles, but without being judgmental or officious.
I generally avoid responding to such postings. However, as new entrant you need to be cautioned lest you overreach and assume the role of super moderator.
I assure you that I would avoid any officious, injudicious but judgmental provocative postings in future.
And, last but least, I, like everyone else privileged to be accepted as Experts in this August Forum look forward to constructive contribution from you. I am more than confident that You can be an asset to this forum.
Guest
(Expert) 09 October 2017
Mr. P. Venu,
I am analyst not only of documents, but also of character of the persons from the attitude they demonstrate before me. From your earlier uncalled for, derogatory, obnoxious and spiteful remarks on the following thread, I could well understand that you are no less than the other side of the same coin, as Mr. Rajendra Goyal and Kumar Doab are. Both the associates deliberately try to mislead the gullible querists through their wrong advice with their little or no knowledge of the subject matter. When they are asked to reconcile on the correctness of their advice, instead of making a review of their wrong advice, they retort with sidetracking as well as abusive posts to confuse more and more to the querists:
LINKof the referred thread:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/it-act-and-376-IPC-657756.asp
In the same fashion and style, instead of making a review of your own wrong advice, you have also retorted with some element of anger and ego, as per your above post. Although you are a law graduate, but from the quality of your posts, I could very well judge that you are just a mediocre type of a lawyer, as enrolled for the last 3 years after your retirement from Department of Salt.
But, I was expecting you to be a sensible person to some extent. But, you have proved me wrong on that aspect, by making the above mentioned post as well as the present post.
Your plea that you had given the suggestion in the light of your understanding of the issue and the principles of law applicable thereto. Question arises, when you have not been able to understand even the basic problem of the querist, how the principles of law could apply, as per your sheer misunderstanding about the problem.
It is just like that a persons asked you the route towards Vikom in Kerala State, but you have suggested him to go to Kolkata in West Bengal. So, your advice cannot in any way be treated as constructive contribution, rather a destructive proposal for the querist to be prepared for the most difficult task to get justice in getting the shares of the deceased transmitted smoothly to the name of the heirs, in case he adopts the path of litigation with the company. The question arises, whether the satisfaction of the company is required for the transmission of shares to the right claimant or the satisfaction of any applicant in the guise of the claimant to get the shares transferred in his/her name. The company has to ensure that the transmission of shares if made in the name of the real legal beneficiary, not in the name of any unknown claimant even with a fabricated will?
If pointing out of any wrong in your own judgmental perception is considered as injudicious, I can very well understand that you have some real problem to understand the basics of the problem. Probably, only due to that reason you could lose your own case in departmental inquiry.
Rest assured, I am not a moderator, rather a link between the authors of the problems and the experts to caution them if the advice could actually be of some benefit or can become a nightmare for the querist to get justice. So, if some hint is thrown open for any expert or you to rectify the mistake, it can be your own prerogative to take that hint in right perspective and a signal to enhance your knowledge or else you can always feel free to live with your own false perceptions, like Mr. Kumar Doab and Rajendra K Goyal prefer to be. That way, that may not affect me in any manner, but that will affect your own image, not only among the querists, but also among your own clients, when you use your stagnant knowledge to fight their cases in the court of law.
So, now if you have decided to avoid any such signal due to your false perception of that being officious, injudicious, judgmental or provocative posting, that will affect me the least, but to you in a big way, as your inert response may dwindle your own image to any extent.
Anyway, best of luck for you, if you prefer to be the follower of the aforesaid two fake experts.
