9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appeal is allowed in terms of prayer 6.1 to 6.3 made in the Company Appeal, subject to furnishing an Indemnity Bond by the Appellant to the satisfaction of Respondent No.1 Company. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 upon receiving such Indemnity Bond shall rectify its Register of Members by inserting the name of the Appellant Company in place of the Transferors of the respective shares. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases, keeping in view of the fact that the Respondent Nos. l to 3 have not opposed the prayer made by the Appellant in the Instant Company Appeal. - Decided in favour of appellant. - Co. Appeal No. 23 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the name/s of the transferor/s. Respondent No.2 be further directed to issue new share certificates in the name of the Appellant by cancelling the original share certificates allotted in the name/s of the Transferor/s and to pay all withheld dividend. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, as set out in the Appeal, are as under: 2.1 That, in 1996, the Respondent No.4 ('the Insured') had purchased one Stock Broker Indemnity Insurance Policy from the Appellant and covered their risk related to certain losses Including loss of shares- 2.2 That, on 20/01/1997, the Insured had purchased 1450 shares of the Respondent No, 1 from M/s. Paraksh Devidas Shah, a share and stock broker and member of NSE. The Insured had executed transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 4/08/1997, the Insured filed a suit bearing No. 2186 of 1997 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed an Injunction order. 2.5 That on 2/04/1998, the Insured lodged the Insurance Claim with the Appellant and the Appellant had assess the loss and paid ₹ 13,55,803/- in full and final settlement of the Insured's claim. However, on February 2011, the Appellant came to know about dismissal of the suit in default of the Appellant and its Advocate. Thereafter, on 7/03/2011, the Appellant through their advisor requested the Respondent No. 3 for suggesting the procedure for duplicate certificates and/or provides other information to enable the Appellant to file a petition before the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
