Allowed

Praful Shah v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement

Bombay HC3 Dec 2009S/3015/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff claimed ownership of 400 shares incorrectly transferred to other defendants due to alleged interception of documents. Court decreed suit ordering issuance of fresh shares and rights if transfer failed within four months, and directed other defendants to pay costs.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed; if first defendant fails to transfer shares within four months, order to issue fresh 400 shares plus right/bonus shares; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Praful Shah Vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.3015 OF 1998

¶3

Praful Manilal Shah
Indian Inhabitant, residing
at 58/C, Walkeshwar Road,
Krishna Niwas,
Bombay-400 006..... Plaintiff
- Versus -

¶4

1. Gujarat Ambuja Cement
 Ltd., a company registered
 under the Indian Companies
 Act, having their registered
 office at Ambuja Nagar,
 P.O. Taluka Kodinar,
 District Amreli,
 Gujarat State-362 715,
 and their Corporate office
 at 122, Maker Chamber-III,
 Nariman Point,
 Bombay - 400 021.
2. T. Siddarth Chaudhary,
 Indian Inhabitant, C/o
 Kora Raju, 8-29/2-13,
 Ramalayam Street,
 Wynchipeta, Vijayawad
 - 5200 010.
3. J. Bhaskar,
 Indian Inhabitant, B-1/3,
 Dr. No.55, H.W.P. Colony,
 Ashwapuram Post,
 Kammam 507 116.
4. K. Murli,
 Indian Inhabitant,

¶5

¶6

 B/A, Ground Floor,
 `Abhishek' Apartment,
 Krishna Nagar,
 Vijaywada - 520 010.

¶7

5. Shah Intrasta Couriers,
 having their office at
 32, Princes Street,
 Sharaf Mansion,
 Bombay-400 002.
6. D.B. Patel & Co.,
 having their office at
 Old Stock Exchange
 Building, Ground Floor,
 Bombay Samachar Marg,
 Mumbai-400 001..... Defendants

¶8

Shri Vikas G. Naik i/b Shukla & Shukla
for the Plaintiff.

¶9

None for the Defendants.

¶10

CORAM: A.S. OKA, J.

¶11

DATED: DECEMBER 03, 2009

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶13

1.The Plaintiff has filed the present

¶14

suit claiming various reliefs against the
defendants. The first defendant is a company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The

¶15

¶16

case of the plaintiff is that he purchased 400

¶17

shares of the first defendant-company through a

¶18

member of the National Stock Exchange of India

¶19

Limited under bill dated 8-8-1997 covering the

¶20

settlement period between 30-7-1997 to
6-8-1997. According to the plaintiff, the

¶21

payment towards the price of the said shares

¶22

was made by cheque. The plaintiff's broker

¶23

received 400 shares of the first defendant from

¶24

the clearing house. After completing the
transfer deed and affixing the requisite stamp,
the plaintiff delivered the said 400 shares to

¶25

M/s. D.B. Patel & Company (the sixth
defendant).

¶26

2.As the plaintiff did not receive the

¶27

share certificates from the agent of the first
defendant, by letter dated 10-12-1997,
addressed to the transfer agent of the first

¶28

defendant, the plaintiff informed the said
agent that the shares were duly forwarded on

¶29

¶30

26-8-1997. Thereafter, the plaintiff made

¶31

enquiry with the sixth defendant. The sixth
defendant informed the plaintiff that they had
handed over the shares to M/s. Shah Intrasta
Couriers (the fifth defendant herein).
Thereafter, the sixth defendant informed the
plaintiff that the fifth defendant has lost
many parcels and in fact a complaint had been
lodged by the fifth defendant with the L.T.

¶32

Marg Police Station regarding loss of parcels.

¶33

M/s. Sharepro Service, the transfer agent of

¶34

the first defendant, the plaintiff was informed

¶35

that out of the said 400 shares, 300 shares
have already been transferred in favour of the
second to fourth defendants and the remaining
100 shares have not been transferred.
Thereafter, the plaintiff by letter dated
3-1-1998 informed the said agent of the first
defendant that the said 400 shares sent by him

¶36

¶37

must have been intercepted and stolen in

¶38

transit along with the transfer deeds.
Thereafter, there was correspondence made by
the plaintiff with the transfer agent of the
first defendant. The allegation is that the
first defendant in collusion with some persons
has illegally transferred the shares without
any verification of the genuineness of the
signature of the transferor. The contention is

¶39

that the second to fourth defendants are not
entitled to hold the 300 shares. Various
reliefs have been claimed in the plaint, such

¶40

as declaration that the plaintiff is the owner

¶41

of the 400 shares and for a declaration that
the transfer of 300 shares out of the said 400

¶42

shares in favour of the second to fourth
defendants is illegal. A decree is sought
against the first defendant for transferring of

¶43

the aforesaid shares in favour of the

¶44

plaintiff. Further relief is sought as regards
the dividends, right shares and bonus shares.

¶45

¶46

4.In the notice of motion taken out by

¶47

the plaintiff, this Court granted ad-interim
relief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c).

¶48

order dated 9-11-2009 passed in Chamber Summons
No.1215 of 2009, the plaintiff has been
permitted to lead secondary evidence by
production of typed copies of the originals.
The plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief of himself. The plaintiff
has been examined on 30-11-2009. The plaintiff
has proved the documents produced alongwith a
separate list. The first document is a bill
issued by M/s. Prasham Securities Pvt. Ltd.,
dated 8-8-1997 which shows that the plaintiff
acquired 400 shares of the first defendant.
The second document is the delivery sheet of
the National Stock Exchange of India Limited,
showing delivery of 400 shares. There is

¶49

¶50

evidence on record to show that the shares

¶51

along with the transfer deeds were entrusted to

¶52

the sixth defendant. The fact that the
plaintiff acquired 400 shares of the first
defendant and that the same were lodged for
transfer along with the necessary transfer
deeds has been established by the plaintiff.
There is no challenge to the evidence of the
plaintiff by any of the defendants.

¶53

6.Now the prayers made in the suit will
have to be considered. The prayer clauses (a)

¶54

to (d) will have to be granted. If the first
defendant is unable to transfer the said 400
shares in favour of the plaintiff, the first
defendant will have to be ordered and decreed
to issue fresh shares to the plaintiff along
with the right shares and/or bonus shares.

¶55

7.Hence, I pass the following order:

¶56

(a)The suit is decreed in terms of prayer

¶57

¶58

clauses (a) to (d).

¶59

(b)If the first defendant fails to comply

¶60

with the decree in terms of prayer (d) within a
period of four months from the date on which a
copy of the decree is served to the first
defendant, the first defendant shall issue
fresh 400 shares along with the right shares
and/or bonus shares allotted on the basis of

¶61

the said 400 shares after 8-8-1997.

¶62

(c)The first to fourth defendants are
ordered and decreed to pay costs of the suit to
the plaintiff.

¶63

(d)The first defendant shall act upon an

¶64

authenticated copy of this judgment.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(A.S. Oka, J.)

Praful Shah v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praful Shah v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Mohammed Shaikh Vs M.S.R.T.C.

Ramchandra Sakharam Yadhav Vs Deepak Bhaktiram Bhandari and Ors.

Ramchandra Sakharam Yadhav Vs Deepak Bhaktiram Bhandari and Ors.

Shri Narendra Bhivaji Poman Vs the Chief Officer Zilla Pariishad, Sangli and Ors.

Shri Narendra Bhivaji Poman Vs the Chief Officer Zilla Pariishad, Sangli and Ors.

Kailash M.Pagare Vs M/S.Vishy Engineering Industries and Anr.