2018 (8) TMI 2068 - HC - Companies Law

Transfer of shares - existence of revenue stamp as fixed on the transfer certificates on the date of the issuance thereof - HELD THAT - The evidence in the matter is yet to commence and the case is still at the initial stage despite protracted rounds of litigation in the same. As observed vide the impugned order, the entire basis of the case of the plaintiff relies on the share transfer certificates. In these circumstances the permission granted vide the impugned order dated 3.4.2018 to the respondents No.4 to 6 to amend their written statement to bring on record preliminary objections as vide paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 to amend cannot be held to be inappropriate. The petition is declined in as much as the merits or demerits of the amendment would apparently be and are a matter of trial. The petition is thus declined.

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption from filing certified copies of annexures.
2. Challenge to the impugned order allowing amendment of the written statement.
3. Authenticity and validity of share transfer certificates.
4. Allegations of forged documents and fraudulent claims.
5. Legal principles regarding amendments to pleadings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption from filing certified copies of annexures:
The court allowed the petitioner's application for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures, subject to just exceptions.

2. Challenge to the impugned order allowing amendment of the written statement:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 3.4.2018 by the ADJ-03, Patiala House Court, which allowed respondents No. 4 to 6 to amend their written statement. The petitioner contended that the amendments were not necessary and would prejudice their case. However, the court held that amendments necessary for the adjudication of the real controversy should be allowed, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in *Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V.* and *Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors.* The court emphasized that the merits or demerits of the amendments are a matter of trial.

3. Authenticity and validity of share transfer certificates:
The plaintiff's case relied heavily on share transfer certificates, which they claimed were genuine. However, respondents No. 4 to 6 argued that these certificates were based on forged documents, as the stamps on the transfer deeds were not in existence on the alleged dates of issuance. The court noted that the entire case of the plaintiff revolved around these certificates and allowed the amendments to the written statement to address these concerns.

4. Allegations of forged documents and fraudulent claims:
Respondents No. 4 to 6 alleged that the share transfer deeds were forged, as the stamps used were printed much later than the dates on the documents. They provided information obtained through the RTI Act from the Indian Security Press, Nasik, to support their claims. The court allowed these allegations to be incorporated into the written statement, recognizing the necessity of addressing these serious allegations during the trial.

5. Legal principles regarding amendments to pleadings:
The court reiterated the principle that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if they are necessary for the decision of the real controversy between the parties. It cited the Privy Council’s observation in *Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung* and the Supreme Court’s decision in *Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors.*, emphasizing that courts should be liberal in granting amendments unless it causes serious injustice or irreparable loss to the other side.

Conclusion:
The court declined the petition, holding that the amendments allowed by the impugned order were appropriate and necessary for the trial. The merits or demerits of the amendments would be determined during the trial. The court also directed the trial court to conclude the trial by 6.12.2018, noting the protracted nature of the litigation.

← Previous Next →