9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y misconceived and stands rejected. Cloud of doubts was cast upon the entries in the register of members and the distinctive numbers of the shares and, therefore, the finding of fact recorded by the Special Court that there had been no allotment at all and it was sought to be made only after the second respondent was notified under the Act to avoid payment of money of a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs cannot be seriously disputed. Also no good reason to interfere with the said finding and the second contention urged also stands rejected. The Special Court was also justified in noticing that the transaction between the parties was really a financial arrangement with the "buy- back agreement" and even on that basis a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with interest. 2. It was brought out in the proceedings before the Special Court that by a letter dated 5-11-1991, the appellant informed the second respondent that shares of their company worth ₹ 20 lakhs were to be sold. On 13-11-1991, the second respondent sent a cheque for a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs and on 15-11 -1991, the appellant forwarded to the second respondent 15 applications for purchase of shares on buy-back basis. A resolution was made on 15-11-1991, at the meeting of the board of directors of the appellant to allot and issue shares to the investors and to complete formality and physical allotment in due course. On 23-11-1991, the appellant sent to the second respondent application forms so that they may be filled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther examined the matter with reference to the distinc- tive numbers of the shares which revealed a lot of suspicion to the effect that their names in the register of members were made some time after the letter was sent by the Custodian only to overcome the difficulty of an application being made by him and long after the second respondent was notified. Therefore, the allotment is purported to be made in his name without any application in writing and only with a view not to return the money belonging to the notified party. Further, there is no intimation to the Registrar of Companies either for filing of return of the statement stating the number, the nominal amount of the shares, the names, addresses, occupation of the allottees and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a declaration to the effect that a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs in question belongs to the second respondent. Section 7 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Special Court in respect of transactions for any offence referred to in section 3(2) and bars the jurisdiction of any other Court. If the matter had stood thus, the contention put forth on behalf of the appellant perhaps needed further examination. Now after the insertion of section 9A with effect from 25-1-1994, the Special Court exercises the jurisdiction of a civil court in relation to any matter or claim ( a ) relating to any property standing attached under section 3(3) of the Act, and ( b ) arising out of transactions in securities entered into after the 1 -4-1991, and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finding of fact recorded by the Special Court that there had been no allotment at all and it was sought to be made only after the second respondent was notified under the Act to avoid payment of money of a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs cannot be seriously disputed. We find no good reason to interfere with the said finding and the second contention urged also stands rejected. 5. The Special Court was also justified in noticing that the transaction between the parties was really a financial arrangement with the buy- back agreement and even on that basis a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs with interest can be ordered to be paid to the Custodian. We cannot take any exception to this view either. 6. Inasmuch as the appellant has failed in both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
