9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) seeking direction to the 3rd respondent surrender the duplicate share certificate and also sought direction to the 2nd respondent, to return the original share certificates to the petitioner duly transferred in his name. 2. Shri P.K. Vankataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner purchased 100 shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the resistered holder on 9.6.2006. Further, the R2 stated that the certificates lodged for transfer are no more valid and the same are cancelled. The R3 fraudulently sought and obtained duplicate share certificates by wilfully suppressing the transaction with the petitioner. The R3 has mis-appropriated the dividends and other lawful corporate benefits. 3. The learned counsel further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivity of contract with the petitioner regarding the subject shares. Further, it is also stated that they did not receive any consideration from the petitioner either directly or indirectly through his broker. If the petitioner has any grievance then it is for him to take up the matter with the broker from whom he claimed to have purchased the shares and to whom he may have paid the consideration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer deed to the R2 on 25.4.2007. The delay from 1994 till 2010 has not been explained by the petitioner in the petition, the reasons caused delay in approaching this bench. No whisper about the delay is mentioned in the petition. Hence this bench presumes that the petitioner wilfully caused delay in approaching this bench for almost all 16 years. Such a long delay and having no satisfactory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
