9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... physical scrips pertaining to the aforesaid 4,000 shares. The petitioner sent the aforesaid share certificates together with transfer deeds duly filled in and executed for transfer on 29-12-1997. The petitioner sent a letter on 30-3-1998, to the respondent-company inquiring as to why the 4,000 shares sent had not been returned after due transfer in his favour. The petitioner received a reply dated 10-4-1998, from the respondent-company's Registrar and share transfer agent referred to in the covering letter dated 29-12-1997, accompanying the 4,000 shares sent for transfer, and asked for a copy of the said covering letter together with copy of purchase bill and proof of payment. The petitioner immediately vide his letter dated 25-4-1998, furnished all the desired information and also requested M/s. ICICI Investors Service Ltd., to stop transfer of all the impugned shares. 2. It is submitted that in response to the petitioner's letter dated 25-4-1998, respondent No. 1 company sent a letter dated 13-5-1998, informing the petitioner of the transfer status of 2,600 shares out of 4,000 shares sent by him for transfer. As may be observed, while information was provided in relation to 2,60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the amalgamation of the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., with ICICI Bank Ltd., the aforesaid position is now restated as under in view of the exchange of Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., shares with shares of ICICI Bank Ltd. : Total disputed shares 2,000 ( a) Shares transferred in favour of other persons 945 ( b) Shares not lodged for transfer 440 Total (a) + (b ) (shares retained by respondent No. 1 company) 1,385 4. It is submitted that out of the aforesaid 4,000 shares, till date the petitioner has only been able to retrieve 40 (forty) shares from one Mrs. Neha Jain, who voluntarily transferred the shares back to the petitioner in 1998. It is further submitted that it is a buyer of the shares under reference for lawful consideration, and though some six years have elapsed, the petitioner is unable to exercise its rights as the lawful member of its shares nor has got any of the benefits which have accrued to the concurrent members during this period. Despite doing everything in its capacity and having approached every possible forum for redressal, the petitioner has now no option but to pray before this hon'ble Bench for redress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for them, held yes." (iv)In the matter of Pick-up Finvest & Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. C.P. 45 of 2004 (CLB) 5. Respondent No. 1 bank filed its counter and at the very outset states that the petition as filed by the petitioner under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, is not maintainable as the same is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. The petitioner herein instead of seeking remedy and relief from a civil court, has sought to make an application before this honourable Bench is totally inapplicable provisions of law and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. In order to substantiate the submission this respondent states that the petitioner is entitled to file a petition under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, in cases where a company without sufficient cause refuses to register transfer of shares within two months from the date on which the "instrument of transfer or the intimation of transfer", as the case may be, is delivered to the company. This respondent states that in the present case no instruments of transfer have been received by the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted the securities for such conversion, though a large part of the 4,000 (four thousand) shares claimed by the petitioner have been converted and 1,230 (one thousand two hundred and thirty) shares dematerialised. It is submitted that the karta of the petitioner demanded the status of the 4,000 (four thousand) shares and the same was communicated to him vide letters dated 13-5-1998, 11-6-1998 and 17-6-1998. The share transfer registrars have also provided a list of the names of the transferees/holders in whose name the disputed shares stand and have even advised the petitioner time and again to file a civil suit in a competent court for establishing the petitioner's title to the said disputed shares. This respondent had also advised the petitioner to file a civil suit impleading the said transferees as defendants and to do the needful within 21 days from the date of the said letter failing which this respondent informed the petitioner that it would presume that the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the said shares and treat the matter as closed. It is submitted that the petition proceeds on a totally wrong premise by not having established his credentials to proceed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation and the second point is in respect of the maintainability and entitlement of the relief. 8. Now I deal with the point of limitation. The petitioner communicated to the first respondent with regard to the status of the shares which were sent by him for transfer on 30-3-1998. The respondents replied vide their letter dated 10-4-1998 and further communicated vide their letter dated 13-5-1998, forwarding the names in respect of the transfer of shares in favour of third parties and furnished the details of the transferees. The petitioner addressed letter to the Postal Department on 20-4-1998, requesting them to trace the packet containing 4,000 shares which he sent by post and also lodged a police complaint in respect of the loss of shares, on 2-6-1998. The petitioner communicated the same to respondent No. 1 company. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a case before the State Commission, West Bengal at Calcutta under the Consumer Protection Act, 1988, on 4-8-1998, being Case No. 102 of 1998 and obtained status quo orders on 6-8-1998. The petitioner took all steps in respect of loss of shares and communicated to respondent No. 1 company and there is no negligence on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled a case before the State Commission against the respondents seeking an order to stop transfer and compensation for damage due to loss/theft of 4,000 shares. The State Commission ordered status quo on 6-8-1998. The petitioner filed the present petition before this Bench on 16-8-2004. The stand of the respondents that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the relief which is sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Bench and the remedy is available from a competent civil court. After filing the petition the petitioner impleaded the transferees as parties to this petition and notices have been sent to them. The petitioner has taken all steps by sending the transfer deeds and the relevant documents and the details to respondent No. 1 company after purchase of shares. There is no negligence on the part of the petitioner and acted in good faith and in a bona fide manner. Though the respondents vide their letter dated 13-5-1998, addressed to the petitioner advised him to file a civil suit in a competent court of law for establishing title. The petitioner instead of approaching the civil court, approached the State Consumer Forum for redressal. The petitioner ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
