In an undefended suit seeking declaration of title and delivery of shares, the court granted an ex parte decree in terms of the plaintiff's prayer clauses following permission to lead secondary evidence.
Decree in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) and refund of court fees if any.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
SUIT NO.1233 OF 1997
Manisha R. Munot
..Plaintiff.
Vs.
Unit Trust of India and another
..Defendants.
Mr. Venkatesh Kunduru i/b M/s. Kunduru & Kunduru for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants.
CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
26th August, 2009.
P.C. :
15,200 shares of the UTI Master Gain of the First Defendant more particularly listed in Exhibit C to the Plaint and is seeking a decree
against the First and Second Defendants to issue and deliver the shares or,
in the alternate, duplicate share certificates. The Defendants have been served with the writ of summons but have not entered appearance or filed the written statement. In these circumstances, the suit has been
listed an an undefended suit for an ex parte decree. By an order dated
2
12th August, 2009 passed in Chamber Summons 1226 of 2009 this Court had granted permission to the Plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. Accordingly an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the Plaintiff is filed together with a compilation of the documents. The case of the Plaintiff is that in December, 1992 she had purchased 39,900 units of Master Gain – 1992 of the First Defendant for consideration. The shares were transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff claims to have received only 22,800 shares while the balance of 15,200 shares were not received. By a letter dated 21st August, 1996 the Second Defendant was requested to stop the transfer of the suit shares. The letter was duly received and acknowledged by the Second Defendant. The Plaintiff has claimed that she is a bonafide purchaser and holder of the suit shares and entitled to have them transferred in her name. The Plaintiff has stated that she has not sold, transferred or alienated the suit shares to any person and the shares seem to have been either misplaced in transit or stolen. Since no written statement has been filed, the averments contained in the Plaint and the evidence adduced in support of the claim have not been controverted.
3
In these circumstances the suit shall stand decreed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) to (d).
There shall be a refund of Court fees, if any, as per rules.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration as owner and decree for delivery of shares in an ex parte suit.
Unit Trust of India
another
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
