Thus, I too am of the opinion that there was room for Milmus to apply to the court in order to enforce the company to register the transfer of the shares in its name, after the respondents refused to do so, in Milmus's opinion, unlawfully and improperly, to do so.
Such a possibility clearly arises from the instructions Article 134 30Companies Law:
"A person is registered in the Shareholders' Register without being entitled to do so, or is not registered in the said Register even though he is entitled to do so... The court may, at the request of the injured party or any shareholder in the company, grant any relief it deems appropriate, in the circumstances of the case, including amending the registry."
However, it should be remembered that the company does not have a shareholder registry, and it did not take care to fulfill its obligation to create and maintain a shareholder registry. The respondents hold the absence of a prescription as finding a lot of booty, and they seek to build on the company's failure. In the absence of a registry, the registration of the shareholder for a period of six months before he submits a request for liquidation is meaningless.
Milmus asked to register the transfer of shares in her name, and it does not matter that at the time she requested, and even today, the company does not maintain a registry. If the Respondents' refusal is unlawful or improper, then any reasonable court would have ordered the registration even in the absence of a registry. Indeed, justice requires that Milmus's right as a shareholder not be denied to approve the registration of shares in her name. The refusal seems to me, at least, arbitrary and unjustified, at all.
Counsel for the Applicant refers in his summaries to the judgment Other Municipality Requests 6205/98 Michael Scott Unger et al. v. Daniel Ofer et al., Takdin-Supreme Court 2001 (2), 299.
I am of the opinion that the case there is appropriate for our case, and it is written there:
"A well-known rule, in connection with restrictions on the transfer of shares, is that these restrictions should be interpreted in a narrow manner, since shareholders have the right to transfer their shares to whomever they wish. This right should not be curtailed by unclear language and dubious implications...