Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (12) TMI 1466 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to 1,00,000 shares of Reliance Industries Limited and ?43.75 lacs in Fixed Deposit.
2. Legitimacy of Rommel Investment Private Limited's claim and actions.
3. Validity of agreements between Rommel and CRB Capital Markets Limited.
4. Authority of the Special Committee to claim the shares and Fixed Deposit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to 1,00,000 shares of Reliance Industries Limited and ?43.75 lacs in Fixed Deposit:
The Special Committee, constituted by the court, filed an application for directions to the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSEIL) to release 1,00,000 shares of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and ?43.75 lacs in Fixed Deposit. The Committee argued that CRB Mutual Fund, managed by CRB Trustee Limited, was entitled to these shares and funds. The shares were initially sold by Rommel Investment Private Limited without proper authorization and the proceeds were used to purchase additional shares and invest in a Fixed Deposit.

2. Legitimacy of Rommel Investment Private Limited's claim and actions:
Rommel claimed that they had agreements with CRB Capital Markets Limited, pledging 1,02,000 shares of RIL as security for loans given to CRB for the Arihant Mangal Scheme. They argued that due to CRB's default, they sold the pledged shares and used the proceeds to buy 1,00,000 shares of RIL and invest in a Fixed Deposit. However, the court found Rommel's evidence sketchy and unconvincing, noting the lack of detailed records and the failure to show that payment was made to CRB Trustee Limited from the sale of shares.

3. Validity of agreements between Rommel and CRB Capital Markets Limited:
The court scrutinized the agreements dated 22.11.1995 and 24.4.1996, which Rommel claimed were the basis for their actions. The agreements lacked details such as share numbers and folios, and there was no evidence of the loans or consideration being paid by Rommel. The court also questioned why CRB Capital Markets Limited would pledge shares for a scheme that was already successful and well-subscribed. The court concluded that Rommel's defense based on these agreements was not credible.

4. Authority of the Special Committee to claim the shares and Fixed Deposit:
The Special Committee was constituted by a court order to manage and wind up the CRB Mutual Fund's scheme. The court found that Rommel had dealt with shares belonging to CRB Trustee Limited a/c CRB Mutual Fund without proper authorization and failed to show that the sale proceeds were paid to CRB Trustee Limited. The court directed NSEIL to transfer the 1,02,000 shares of RIL and the Fixed Deposit amount to the Special Committee, rejecting Rommel's claims.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the application of the Special Committee, directing NSEIL to transfer 1,02,000 shares of RIL along with accumulated benefits and the Fixed Deposit amount of ?43.75 lacs to the Committee. The court found Rommel's claims and defenses unconvincing and lacking in credible evidence, leading to an adverse inference against Rommel. The application was disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates