Since you have only provided the case title "Section 111(13) in The Companies Act, 1956" and the court "Union of India - Subsection" along with the date "18 January 1956", it is impossible to provide a case summary. This information is insufficient to understand the facts, issues, arguments, and reasoning involved. Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, deals with the power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal. Subsection (13) specifically addresses the power of the Central Government to direct a company to rectify its register of members.

To provide a proper summary, I would need the actual text of the court's judgment or a detailed case brief outlining the specific dispute and the arguments presented. Without that, I can only offer a general description of the legal provision.

General Information Regarding Section 111(13) of the Companies Act, 1956 (in lieu of a case summary):

Short Summary: Section 111(13) of the Companies Act, 1956, empowers the Central Government to direct a company to rectify its register of members if it finds that a refusal or failure to register a transfer of shares was without sufficient cause. This section provides a mechanism for the government to intervene when a company's actions regarding share transfers are deemed unjust or detrimental to shareholders' rights.

Facts: Hypothetically, a shareholder might allege that a company wrongfully refused to register a transfer of their shares to a buyer. The shareholder could then petition the Central Government to investigate the matter.

Issues: The main issue would be whether the company's refusal to register the transfer was justified based on the company's articles of association or any other valid legal grounds.

Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner (aggrieved shareholder) would argue that the company's refusal was without sufficient cause and that the transfer should be registered to protect their property rights.

Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (the company) would argue that its refusal was justified, citing specific provisions in its articles of association or other relevant legal reasons for denying the transfer.

Court's Reasoning (Hypothetical): If the Central Government, after investigation, determined that the company's refusal was indeed without sufficient cause, it would likely consider the prejudice caused to the shareholder and the potential impact on the marketability of the shares.

Conclusion (Hypothetical): The Central Government could order the company to rectify its register of members by registering the transfer of shares. The government's decision would be binding on the company.

Important Note: This is a hypothetical scenario based on the general understanding of Section 111(13). A real case summary requires the specific details of the case in question.