Allowed

Gopikrishan S.Damani and Anr. v. Supreme Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2007S/2298/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an undefended suit, Justice Ranjana Desai decreed in favor of a share broker plaintiff who alleged forged transfers of shares by third parties. The court ordered a declaration of ownership and a directive for the issue of duplicate shares, subject to the plaintiffs following prescribed procedures.

What did the court decide?

Decreed for plaintiffs: declaration of ownership of 300 shares and order directing defendant to issue duplicate shares in plaintiffs' name, subject to due procedure.

Gopikrishan S.Damani and Anr. Vs Supreme Industries… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

MSS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 SUIT NO. 2298 OF 1996

¶5

 GOPIKISHAN S. DAMANI & ANR. .. PLAINTIFFS

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.... DEFENDANTS

¶8

 Mr. A. H. Mukri i/b Purohit & Co. for plaintiff
 Ms. Aarti Birje i/b M/s. Khaitan & Jayekar for
 defendant 1

¶9

CORAM:SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶10

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 . This suit is on my board under the caption
 "Undefended Suits for ex parte decree". Affidavit
 of evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief dated
 18/7/07 filed by the 1st plaintiff is on record.
 It is marked "X". Additional affidavit of the 1st
 plaintiff dated 29/8/07 is on record. It is marked
 "Y". List of documents along with the compilation
 of documents is on record and it is marked "Z

¶13

 (Colly.)".

¶14

 2. Shri Gopikishan Damani, the 1st plaintiff is
 present in the court. He confirms the averments
 made in the plaint and in his affidavit. In the
 additional affidavit dated 29/8/07 it is stated

¶15

¶16

 that the documents mentioned at serial Nos. 3,4
 and 5 are the Xerox copies of the transfer deeds
 lodged with the 1st defendant company by defendants
 2,3,4,5 and 6 with respect to 50 shares each. The
 said Xerox copies were provided by the 1st
 defendant company to the plaintiffs and the
 plaintiffs do not have in their custody the
 original transfer deeds lodged by defendants
 2,3,4,5, and 6 with defendant No. 1 company. The
 1st plaintiff has, therefore, prayed that the Xerox
 copies of the said three transfer deeds maybe taken
 on record as secondary evidence. First defendant
 is represented by learned counsel Ms. Aarti Birje.
 The learned counsel states that 1st defendant is
 supporting the case of the plaintiffs as stated in
 the plaint and in the supporting affidavits. She
 stated that original of document at Sr. No. 5 is
 with the Stock Holding Corporation of India
 Limited, Vikhroli (Mumbai). She has produced
 original of transfer deeds at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4.
 They are marked Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively.
 The plaintiffs are, permitted to tender Xerox
 copies of the said three transfer deeds as
 secondary evidence.

¶17

 3. The case of the plaintiffs as is evident from

¶18

¶19

 the contents of the plaint and the affidavit of
 evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief is that
 the 1st plaintiff is a share and stock broker
 carrying on business in shares and securities
 according to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of
 the Stock Exchange, Bombay. The 2nd plaintiff is
 the wife of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant
 company is a public limited company and its shares
 are listed and traded inter alia at the Stock
 Exchange, Bombay. Defendants 2 to 6 have illegally
 and fraudulently acquired 150 shares of the 1st
 defendant company with the forged transfer deeds
 and lodged the same for transfer with the 1st
 defendant.

¶20

 4. According to the plaintiffs, 1st defendant
 company announced a right offer of Partly
 Convertible Debentures and in response to the said
 right offer the plaintiffs vide application No.
 4618 dated 10/7/93 applied for 300 Partly
 Convertible Debentures and paid a sum of

¶21

 Rs.24,000/- as and by way of application money vide
 cheque bearing No. 004297 dated 10/7/93 at Bharat
 Overseas Bank. The said cheque was encashed by the
 1st defendant.

¶22

¶23

 5. According to the plaintiffs in pursuance to the
 said application the 1st defendant allotted to the
 plaintiffs 300 Partly Convertible Debentures under
 Folio No. 0005189. The 1st defendant company made
 a call with respect to the said 300 Partly
 Convertible Debentures and pursuant thereto the
 plaintiffs have paid the call amount.

¶24

 6. The plaintiffs case is that the said 300 Partly
 Convertible Debentures were converted into 300
 equity shares each of Rs.10/- paid up and 300 15%
 Non Convertible Debentures each of Rs.300/- paid
 up. The details of the said 300 equity shares of
 Rs.10/- paid up are mentioned in Exhibit "A" to the
 plaint.

¶25

 7. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant
 company vide its letter bearing reference No.
 SH/1, dated 1/7/95 informed the 1st plaintiff that
 transfer for 50 shares comprised in Share
 Certificate No. 93/CP 010999 corresponding
 distinctive Nos.9338776/825 purporting to have been
 executed by the plaintiffs are presented to the 1st
 defendant company for registration for transfer of
 the said shares. In the said letter 1st defendant
 has stated that the signature of the plaintiffs

¶26

¶27

 does not tally with the specimen signature
 registered with the company and required the
 plaintiffs to convey to the 1st defendant company
 within 15 days from the said letter if they have
 any objection to the said transfer. The original
 of the said letter is at Serial No. 1 to the List
 of Original Documents and it is marked Exh.-1.

¶28

 8. After receipt of the said letter dated 1/7/95

¶29

 the 1st plaintiff made a search for the said 300
 shares and 300 Non-Convertible Debentures, however,
 the same were not located. The 1st plaintiff is
 not aware as to when the said 300 shares and 300
 Non-Convertible Debentures were lost or misplaced
 or stolen from his custody.

¶30

 9. On 13/7/95 Mr. Ramkaran Lohia the

¶31

 representative of the 1st plaintiff personally

¶32

 visited the office of the 1st defendant company,
 and discussed the matter with the 1st defendant

¶33

 company and requested the 1st defendant company to
 keep the said transfer in abeyance and also
 requested to furnish Xerox copies of transfer deed

¶34

 of both sides for further action. The said facts

¶35

 were recorded by the 1st plaintiff in his letter

¶36

 dated 13th July, 1998 addressed to the 1st

¶37

¶38

 defendant company. A copy of the said letter is at
 Serial No. 2 in the list of original documents.
 It is marked Exh.- "2".

¶39

 10. In response to the said letter dated 13/7/95 ,
 the 1st defendant company furnished to the 1st
 plaintiff Xerox copies of three transfer deeds with
 respect to 150 shares pertaining to 50 shares
 bearing distinctive Nos. 9338776/825,
 corresponding share certificate No. 010999 lodged
 by defendants 2 and 3 jointly for transfer in their
 names, 50 shares bearing distinctive nos.
 9338/26/775, corresponding share certificate No.
 010998 lodged by defendants 4 and 5 jointly for
 transfer in their names and further 50 shares
 bearing distinctive Nos. 9338626/675 corresponding
 share certificate No. 10996, lodged by defendant 6
 for transfer in her name. The Xerox copies of the
 said three deeds are at serial nos. 3,4 and 5 to
 the list of original documents. They are marked
 Exh.- "3", "4" & "5" respectively.

¶40

 11. According to the plaintiffs they have not
 executed any of the transfer deeds and the
 signatures of the plaintiffs as appearing on the
 said transfer deeds are forged and the notarisation

¶41

¶42

 made on the transfer deed is also false and bogus.

¶43

 12. The plaintiffs vide their advocate’s letter
 dated 11/8/1995 informed the 1st defendant that the
 said transfer deeds are forged. The plaintiffs
 also recorded that the plaintiffs have never gone
 to the Notary and they do not know A. D. Shroff.
 It is also stated that fraud has been played and
 the plaintiffs are proceeding in the matter. It
 was also requested that the 1st defendant company
 should not transfer and deliver the said shares and
 also should not transfer the balance 300 shares and
 300 Non Convertible Debentures if lodged with the
 1st defendant for transfer. A copy of the letter
 was sent to the Senior Inspector of Police, M.R.A.
 Marg Police Station for investigation and action.
 A copy of letter dated 11/8/95 is at serial No. 6
 of the list of original documents. It is marked as
 Exh. "6".

¶44

 13. According to the plaintiffs till date the said
 300 shares are standing in the names of the
 plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have been receiving
 dividends with respect to the said 300 shares. The
 counter folio of dividend warrant with respect to
 the interim dividend declared for the year

¶45

¶46

 2006-2007 declared on the said 300 shares is at
 Serial No. 7 to the List of Original Documents.
 It is marked as Exh. "7".

¶47

 14. The plaintiffs’ case further is that in the
 year 2006 the 1st defendant company issued bonus
 shares on the said 300 shares in the ratio of 1:1,
 and the said 300 bonus shares have been credited to
 the De-mat account of the plaintiffs, bearing
 Client ID No. 1201710000000168. A copy of the
 allotment letter dated 28th December, 2006 is at
 serial No. 8 to the list of original documents.
 It is marked as Exh. "8".

¶48

 15. It is in these circumstances, that the
 plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that
 the plaintiffs are the owners of the said 300 suit
 shares more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
 to the plaint, together with all the benefits
 accrued thereon and also for a decree against the
 1st defendant company thereby ordering the 1st
 defendant company to issue duplicate shares in lieu
 of the said 300 shares in the name of the
 plaintiffs.

¶49

 16. As already stated, the learned counsel for the

¶50

¶51

 1st defendant is present. She supported the case
 of the plaintiffs. Defendants 2 to 6 have been
 served. They are not contesting the suit. They
 have not filed written statements.

¶52

 17. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the
 plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in terms of
 prayer clause (a) of the plaint. The plaintiffs
 are also entitled to a decree in terms of prayer
 clause (b) except the bracketed portion. The suit
 is, therefore, decreed in terms of prayer clause
 (a). The suit is also decreed in terms of prayer
 clause (b) except the bracketed portion. Needless
 to say that duplicate shares in the name of the
 plaintiffs will be issued only if the plaintiffs
 follow the due prescribed procedure.

¶53

 18. Suit is disposed of.

¶54

 JUDGE.

Gopikrishan S.Damani and Anr. v. Supreme Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopikrishan S.Damani and Anr. v. Supreme Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokhandwala Estates and Devplment Co. Vs Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Shankar Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd.

Shirin Keki Panthaki Vs Nargis Pheroze Kharas and Ors.

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd., New India Assuranceco.Ltd Vs Transport Corpn. of Indialtd

laxmi asbessstos product Ltd. Vs camco bulders india limited

Oommen Michael Vs Gayatriprasad Ramnaresh Pandey and Ors.

The Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Limited and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.