9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondent-company and paid full consideration in respect of the same. Thus, the petitioner became the legal owner of these 3,200 shares also. But these 3,200 equity shares also were lost from the custody of the petitioner with signed transfer deeds. Thus, out of the total 9,500 equity shares 9,400 equity shares have been lost from the custody of the petitioner. Though sufficient search was made, these shares could not be found. The petitioner confirms that the said equity shares have not been sold, transferred, pledged or otherwise disposed of by the petitioner but have been lost from the custody of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner wrote letters to the respondent-company on October 2, 1994 and December 6, 1994, intimating the loss of the share certificates along with the transfer deeds with a request not to transfer the said shares to anybody. But the company did not respond at all. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Suits Nos. 5329 of 1994 and 1101 of 1995 against the respondent-company before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for grant of injunction against the respondent-company. The hon'ble City Civil Court vide its order dated October 17, 1994 and April 10, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany after the order of the Company Law Board, Northern Region Bench dated March 5, 2007, the petitioner sent reminders to the respondent-company for issue of duplicate share certificates, requisite formalities regarding 1,200 equity shares and for exchange of information regarding 1,500 equity shares, etc., vide its letters dated March 22, 2007 and May 1, 2007, to which the respondent had not replied in any manner whatsoever. Thereafter various e-mails/correspondences were exchanged pursuant to which the company has issued advertisements for 6,600 equity shares on May 12, 2007 and 1,200 equity shares on May 15, 2007 in two English newspapers, i.e., Raipur edition of Hitavada, and Mumbai edition of Financial Express. The applicant paid the cost of advertisement to the company on May 11, 2007, vide cheque No. 232355 for the amount of Rs. 39,479 and on May 16, 2007, vide cheque No. 232359 for the amount of Rs. 17,661. The publication was made in order to ensure that no interest of any person was being infringed upon pursuant to such issuance of shares to the applicant. The applicant had also furnished an indemnity bond along with affidavit to the respondent-company on June 1, 2007, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner that the shares in question were lost in transit or were stolen from the custody of the petitioner. The shares in question were neither submitted by the petitioner to the respondent for transfer nor has the respondent refused to transfer these shares, hence question of any petition to the Board does not arise. This Board has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. The facts that the petitioner had purchased the shares in question, the petitioner had legal title to those shares, the shares were allegedly lost in transit or stolen from the custody of the petitioner, will have to be established by the petitioner by lending evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, etc. The petitioner is also seeking declaration of title in respect of 9,300 equity shares. No declaration of title can be granted in these proceedings which are summary in nature. Only a competent civil court will have jurisdiction to consider all these facts or grant any declaration of title. In the circumstances, the present petition be dismissed in limine. 4. As on the date and even as on the date of filing of the first petition under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, the shares in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he civil court. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner approached the civil court almost one year after the shares started being lodged for transfer with the company. These facts cast a serious doubt on the case of alleged purchase and loss of share certificates by the petitioner. 6. The respondent-company filed its affidavit in reply dated October 14, 2008, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not come before this Bench with clean hands. The petitioner is repeatedly committing the act of concealment of facts which he believes would go against his case. The petitioner's bills are fabricated and are aimed to commit fraud and dupe small shareholders and investors. The purported bills do not cover 9,400 shares as claimed by the petitioner since the purported bills also show the sale of 3,100 shares. These bills do not carry any mandatory details of distinctive numbers nor even share certificate numbers. The purported bills are fabricated and fake for the reason that the public issue of the company was opened only on June 21, 1993. The allotment of the shares was made on August 18, 1993, whereas the listing-cum-trading permission was granted by the Bombay Stock Exchange w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
