9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of the draft notice of motion handed in. Notice of motion is made returnable on 30-1-1996. The learned counsel for various defendants at today's hearing waive service of motion on behalf of their respective clients. 2. Perused the plaint and the affidavits filed on all sides. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 3. For the reasons briefly indicated hereinafter, application for ad interim relief as prayed for is refused. 4. By letter Exhibit "AA" to the plaint the defendant No. 10 has refused to transfer the suit shares in favour of defendant No. 9 on the ground that the signatures made on the relevant transfer deeds for and on behalf of the transferors do not tally with the specimen signatures in the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant No. 10. Assuming for the argument sake that the defendant No. 2 held the necessary powers of attorneys from defendant Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 so as to effect the transfer of the said shares, even then it was necessary that the verified signatures of Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh be notified to defendant No. 10 as a specimen signature. This was not done. It is the case of the defendant No. 2 that the defendant No. 2 had in fact passed a Board Resolution on 7-8-1995, authorising Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh, its Director, to sign the transfer deeds in respect of the shares held by defendant Nos. 12 to 14. A copy of the said alleged Resolution is to be found at page 176 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 11 to 14. It is the case of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. I express no opinion on the various disputes between the parties. The procedure followed by defendant No. 10 for considering the application for transfer of shares appears to be correct and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. If so, the defendant No. 1 is entitled to take necessary action in the matter, as provided by its regulations. 7. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 9 has argued vigorously that the defendant No. 10 had acted maliciously in refusing to transfer suit shares in favour of defendant No. 9, the ultimate purchaser of the suit shares. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the real reason for refusing to transfer the suit shares was to the effect that the defendant No. 10 wanted to assist d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma facie there is no proof of fraud, commission or malice. 8. It is possible that the plaintiffs have acted bona fide with and have parted with large amount. It is possible that the other parties to the suit have also parted with amounts. If the delivery of the suit shares is liable to be considered as bad and ineffective delivery, monies already paid or received by the parties concerned may have to be refunded. Several monetary adjustments may have to be made. I express no opinion. If the Court is not able to find any legal infirmity in respect of the decision of defendant No. 10 set out in letter Exhibit "AA" to the plaint, or convincing of malice, fraud or collusion, the National Stock Exchange cannot be prohibited from taking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
