9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. This issue was treated as preliminary issue and was directed to place before us for adjudication on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties. 3. In the instant case a notice of compensation application was issued against the Respondent under section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 ('the Act') along with copy of the application for compensation and Annexures 'A' to 'E' returnable on 23-11-1994. In this application it was alleged that the applicant is a shareholder of Respondent No. 1 holding equity shares of Rs. 10 and is entitled to allotment of rights shares issued by respondent No. 1 which are offered to the existing members from time to time in terms of the provisions of section 81A of the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a result of these practices the applicant has suffered grievous monetary loss and mental anguish and prayed to direct the Respondent to pay him jointly or severally the compensation amount of Rs. 1,75,400 with further interest. 6. On these allegations the Respondents while filing their reply on merits have challenged the maintainability of this application on the following grounds: "1. That the complainant had applied for the Right Issue of the respondent company No. 1 that means the complainant is a prospective buyer of the shares of Right Issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Morgan Stanley v. Kartick Das reported in volume 2nd [1994] CPJ7 (SC). A prospective buyer before allotment of shares, the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent and has reaffirmed the allegations. It has also been urged by the applicant that the Supreme Court Judgment in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das [1994] 1 SCL 19 (SC) is not applicable since the Respondents have failed to provide requisite services within the meaning of section 2( r) of the Act as pointed out in the application and also does not apply to this application for compensation. 8. We have heard both the parties at some length. We have also gone through the pleadings and the documents placed on record as well as the cases cited by the Respondent, namely, Morgan Stanley and Deepak Fertilizers. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has urged that in the light of the observations made by the Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
