9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Justice R.C. Mankad, President - Complainant No. 1 was shareholder of the opponent-company. The opponent offered right equity shares to the shareholders. According to the complainants, the opponent had sent two letters of offer to the complainants. Under Folio No. R-0365, 1,500 right shares and under Folio No. V-0318,100 right equity shares were offered. Equity share of Rs. 10 was offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although there was sufficient balance in the account. It appears that the right equity shares for which complainant No. 2 had made application were allotted. However, 1,500 shares renounced in favour of complainant No. 2 were not allotted as the cheque for Rs. 21,000 was dishonoured by the bank. The complainants, therefore, sent demand draft for Rs. 43,312 which included call money and interest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opponent for allotment of 1,500 shares. There is no dispute regarding 100 shares offered to complainant No. 2 as these shares have been allotted. The question is whether the complainant can claim compensation from the opponent for failure to allot 1,500 right equity shares to complainant No. 2. It is not disputed that cheque of Rs. 21,000 was dishonoured by the bank on which it was drawn. Unle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Opponent, however, refused to accept the demand draft. Now, the opponent has stated in its letter dated 29-1-1994 addressed to complainant No. 2 that since all the formalities relating to allotment have been completed, request to allot shares could not be considered. The opponent, therefore, returned the demand draft. In our opinion, since demand draft was received by the opponent after all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
