9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation - Record does not substantiate this submission of the appellant, respondent no. 1 was pursing his case right from the inception and correspondences are prima facie evident of this fact. It is also not the argument of the appellant that respondent No. 1 had not purchased the shares from him, his whole argument is bordered on the issue of limitation, submission being that because of the inordinate delay on the part of respondent No. 1 in taking active steps, the present petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act is liable to be dismissed. Case of the respondent all along has been that he had purchased these shares on 20.05.1992 but they were lost on the same date, accordingly it had been prayed that in the absence of the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Appellant before this Court is the Unit Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). 3. The case of the respondent is that he had bought 200 equity shares of the value of Rs. 10 each in a broker to broker transaction from M/s Dev Saigal Co. vide invoice dated 20.05.1992. This document finds mention at page 67 of the paper book. These 200 shares were lost on the same date itself; not only these shares but his bag full of shares of other companies had also been lost; an FIR of the same date i.e. 20.05.1992 was registered in the concerned police station which forms a part of the record. On 26.05.1992 the respondent wrote to the Delhi Stock Exchange giving him the details of the various shares which had been lost by him as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than 2500 shares had been lost and this is evident from the details given in these communications. It is also not case of the appellant that the numbers in each of these communications are different; record shows that earlier the distinctive numbers had been given as 11916764-813, 112466-515 which were renumbered in all subsequent communications as 4070816-865; 3465966-015; this was apparently and evidently because of inadvertence and a mistaken identification; there could be but no other explanation and this fact finding returned by the CLB based on sound discretionary principles calls for no interference. 6. The appellant has also assailed the order of the CLB on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of the Companies Act was barred. 8 This is a misdirected submission. It is not the case of the appellant that the principle of res judicata was applicable; Order 23 Rule 3 would also not apply. A petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act is a summary procedure vesting the CLB with the jurisdiction to rectify the share register; it is not a suit. 9. Even after the withdrawal of the suit in 22.11.2000 respondent no. 1 did not allow the matter to rest; he continued with his vigorous efforts to get share register rectified. The petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act was filed in 2009. In this interregnum period respondent No. 1 wrote letters to the Mumbai Division of the Company seeking a rectification in the share regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred to which there appears to be no explanation by the Company. 11. The CLB in this context has rightly observed that an individual has been pitted against a big financial institution and in this factual scenario because of the arbitrary discretion exercised by the Company respondent No. 1 had little choice but to come knocking on the doors of the court. 12. It is also not the case of the appellant that they had taken any action to get these shares re-registered in their names; they have admittedly not taken a single step in this regard; no communication had been sent by the appellant to the Company asking for this stop transfer in 1998 to be removed. 13. It is in this background that the order of the CLB has to be tested. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the CLB; it is a rectification of the share register rectified alone which is permissible under Section 111 A of the Companies Act. 18. A wholesome reading of the petition negatives this argument. Case of the respondent all along has been that he had purchased these shares on 20.05.1992 but they were lost on the same date; accordingly it had been prayed that in the absence of the original documents i.e. share certificates and the share transfer forms a direction be given to the Company to rectify the Share Register entering his name in the list of share holders qua these 100 shares. 19. As noted (supra) out of the 200 shares which had formed part of the transaction dated 20.05.1992 Company has already transferred 100 shares in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
