The court decreed a suit filed by a plaintiff for declaration that shares transferred to the second defendant were illegal, and for transfer of shares back to her name. There were no written statements filed by defendants.
Suit decreed for declaration of illegality of transfer and ordering transfer of shares to plaintiff.
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.270 OF 1997
Mrs.Kanan Sheth. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. & Anr. ...Defendants.
Mr. S.K. Jain for the Plaintiff. None. for the Defendants.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
June 25, 2009 .
P.C.
The subject matter of the suit is 19,600 equity shares of the
First Defendant and 14,700 bonus shares issued by the First Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Second Defendant has no right, title or interest therein; and that the purported transfer of the said shares and issuance of the bonus shares by the First Defendant to the Second Defendant is illegal. The Plaintiff further seeks a decree that the Second Defendant be ordered to deliver up the said equity shares and the bonus shares to the
2
Plaintiff and that the First Defendant be ordered and directed to deregister the aforesaid shares from the name of the Second Defendant and to duly transfer and register them in the name of the Plaintiff.
3
Exchange. In October 1996, the Plaintiff desired to have the shares duly transfered in her name when it was found that the share certificates and the transfer forms were missing and/or stolen. A complaint was lodged with the M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai on 2nd November 1996. On 31st October 1996, the Plaintiff addressed a letter to the First Defendant to which there was a reply dated 6th November 1996. A complaint was addressed to the Mumbai Stock Exchange on 6th December 1996. The Stock Exchange endorsed a copy of the complaint to the First Defendant on 6th December 1996. In reply, the First Defendant by a letter dated 9th December 1996 furnished the name and address of the Second Defendant as the transferee of the shares.
bonus shares in the ratio of 4 : 1 in December 1996 making a total of 14,700 bonus shares.
4
paid any consideration for the shares and that the shares were transferred in the records of the First Defendant dishonestly and surreptitiously on the basis of stolen share certificates and blank transfer forms. It has been averred that the Second Defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value.
the First and Second Defendants that pending the hearing the final disposal of the suit, the Defendants shall not transfer, encumber or in any manner part with possession of the suit shares except with the prior permission of the Court.
5
issued by the M.R.A. Marg Police Station. Permission is granted to the Plaintiff to lead secondary evidence in respect of which originals are not available. The Plaintiff has established her claim on the basis of the evidence led and the documentary evidence produced. The suit shall accordingly, stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) and (i).
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the transfer of shares and issuance of bonus shares to the second defendant was illegal.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree ordering the second defendant to deliver up the shares and the first defendant to deregister and re-register them.
Whether the plaintiff established her claim on the basis of the evidence led and documentary evidence produced.
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
