9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Calcutta District Forum dismissing a complaint demanding compen- sation against the opposite parties-respondents. The appellant-complain-ants case before the district forum was as follows. 2. The appellant is a registered shareholder of the Reliance Industries Ltd. (respondent No. 1) in respect of 400 shares which she purchased from respondent No. 2 for valuable consideration. The share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the said company duly signed by the same transferors, namely, Aswin Shan- tilal Mehta and Deepika Aswin Mehta as security for the said amounts. But the said shares were also tainted shares and amounted to bad delivery. The shares were sold and delivered through respondent No. 3, namely, Vinod Baid Co. The appellant complainant has alleged that he has sustained loss for the relevant shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination is if the case been rightly dismissed by the Forum. DECISION 6. The petitioner's case is that he purchased 400 shares of opposite Party No. 1 through the opposite Party No. 2 and paid the said opposite party the value of the shares, but the shares proved to be a bad debt as the registration of the same was refused by the company to whom they were sent for registration of the transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purchase of the disputed 400 shares. The transferors of the shares were Aswin Shantilal Mehta and Deepika Aswin Mehta. They were ordered to be made parties to the proceedings by the District Forum, but the same was not done. 8. Evidently the opposite Party No. 2 had no title to the disputed shares. If at all, he was a broker. The said opposite party has, however, denied any transaction wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
