therewith to the Plaintiffs. It is in the interest of justice that even she be directed to deposit her shares in this court pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. As for Defendant No.1 (Appellant in the company appeal), I have already held that she has been a party to the transaction of sale and if the Plaintiffs bring the unpaid amount payable to her into the Court, she may well be ordered to deposit her balance 8738 shares into the court. The only question that may have to be considered at the trial would be of interest, if any, payable to her in the interregnum. The Plaintiffs' case is that they were always ready and willing and even offered to pay her, but that she refused to accept the payment. On the other hand, the record bears out that unlike others, who were paid without their having deposited their shares, she was not paid at the relevant time, and instead a wrong party, Bindu Khetani, was paid for the shares held by Defendant No.1, which entry was reversed subsequently and ever since then the Plaintiffs have had the benefit of the money payable for those shares, whilst, at the same time, being in complete control of Respondent No.1 and possession of the property. I am of the view that in these facts, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Plaintiffs to deposit the sum of Rs.1,02,93,364/- payable for the balance shares of Defendant No.1 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 21 July 2010 (when the amount could be said to be originally payable) till the date of the deposit. Defendant No.1 may have an option to withdraw the principal sum of Rs.1,02,93,364/- from out of this sum against deposit of transfer forms duly signed by her in blank for all her shares (she not having executed any transfer form except for 10 shares). The balance amount may have to be deposited in appropriate fixed deposits during the pendency of the suit.
