Vinod Abrol and Anr. vs Y. G. Jadhav (Deleted)(Deceased)Thr.Lrs. 1.1) Pushpamala Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinod Abrol and Anr. vs Y. G. Jadhav (Deleted)(Deceased)Thr.Lrs. 1.1) Pushpamala Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both interim applications disposed of: I.A. No.18239 of 2023 allowed — the ad-interim order dated 20/12/2023 (restraint against creating third party interests in the disputed and accreted shares) continues in terms of paragraph 5 of that order during pendency of the appeal; I.A. No.11637 of 2024 rejected — withdrawal of Rs.26,932/- with accrued interest deposited in Court is not permitted at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim relief granted by this Court's order dated 20/12/2023 — staying the effect of Clause 3 of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 04/11/2023 and restraining the Respondents from creating third party interests in the disputed, bonus, split and rights issue shares — should continue during the pendency of the appeal (I.A. No.18239 of 2023). +4 more

Court's answer

The ad-interim order granted on 20/12/2023 (restraint against creation of third party interests in the subject shares and bonus, split and rights issue shares) is required to be, and is, continued during the pendency of the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

For the same reason, the amount lying deposited in the Court cannot be permitted to be withdrawn at this stage; consequently I.A. No.11637 of 2024 seeking withdrawal of Rs.26,932/- with accrued interest is rejected.

Key takeaways

Irrespective of the arbitration proceedings between Respondent No.1 broker and Respondent No.2 (to which the Appellant was not a party), even if the monetary worth of the shares has been paid back, the Appellant's entitlement to increase in the shares in the form of bonus shares, split shares and rights issue shares — described as substantial, being 4500 according to the Appellants and 3600 according to Respondent No.2 — will have to be considered; this is the principal ground for continuing the interim restraint during the appeal.ratio¶para 11
The question of jurisdiction of the Court, and the question whether the return of the monetary worth arising out of the arbitration award can satisfy the claim of the Appellant, are expressly left open and shall be tested at the time of the final hearing of the appeal; they are not decided in this order.obiter¶para 12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — First Appeal No.127 of 2024, with Interim Applications Nos.18239 of 2023 and 11637 of 2024 (M. M. Sathaye, J.; 19-12-2025). Dispute over 200 shares of Respondent No.4, M/s. Himatsingka Seide Ltd., purchased through share-broker Respondent No.1, M/s. R.R. Nabar and Co., allegedly bought 'for the Appellant' (Y. G. Jadhav through L.R.s) but wrongly given/transferred to Respondent No.2, Mr. Vinod Abrol, and onward by him to Respondent No.3; Respondent No.2 claims he ordered 400 shares, while the broker's counsel says the order was only for 200 shares. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction (Judgment and Decree dated 04/11/2023) but directed release, in favour of Respondent No.2, of the amount and disputed shares deposited by him in Court; the effect of Clause 3 was stayed by this Court on 20/12/2023. An arbitration between the broker and Respondent No.2 — to which the Appellant was not a party — resulted in payment of the monetary worth of 200 shares with accrued benefits, received by the Appellant without prejudice. Held: (i) the ad-interim restraint of 20/12/2023 against creating third party interests in the disputed shares and bonus, split and rights issue shares continues during pendency of the appeal (I.A.18239/2023 allowed); (ii) withdrawal of Rs.26,932/- with accrued interest deposited in Court is refused and I.A.11637/2024 is rejected; (iii) entitlement to accreted shares (4500 claimed by the Appellants, 3600 by Respondent No.2) must be considered despite repayment of monetary worth; and (iv) the jurisdictional question and the sufficiency of monetary restitution to satisfy the claim are left to be tested at the final hearing of the appeal.

12 IA 18239 of 2023 -11637 OF 2024 C.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SUMIT Digitally signedby SUMITRAMESH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18239 OF 2023 RAMESH KARNIK KARNIK Date: 2025.12.2218:42:40 +0530 IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.127 OF 2024

Y. G. Jadhav (deceased through L.R.s) 1a) Pushpamala Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. ... Applicants V/s.

M/s. R.R. Nabar and Co. and Ors. … Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11637 OF 2024 IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.127 OF 2024

Vinod Abrol and Anr. ... Applicants

In the matter between : Y. G. Jadhav (deceased through L.R.s) 1a) Pushpamala Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. ... Appellants V/s. M/s. R.R. Nabar and Co. and Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Shankar P. Thorat a/w Mr. Gurunath B. Walawalkar Adv. for Applicants in I.A. No.18239 of 2023 and for Appellants in FA.

Mr. Jayant Gaikwad Adv. i/b Ajay Khandekar & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Pankaj Shah Adv. for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Vinod Abrol - Applicant in person is present in I.A. No.11637 of 2024.

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

DATED : 19^th DECEMBER 2025

P.C.:

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

1/4

Karnik

12 IA 18239 of 2023 -11637 OF 2024 C.doc

IA/18239/2023 is filed seeking interim stay to the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 04/11/2023 and for direction against Respondents that they should not create third party interest in the disputed shares. IA/11637/2024 is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 seeking permission to withdraw amount of Rs.26,932/- with accrued interest that was deposited in this Court.

On 20/12/2023, the Respondents are already directed not to create third party interest with respect of the subject shares which are referred to in Clause No.3 of impugned Judgment and Decree as well as bonus shares, split shares and rights issue shares.

The dispute arises out of purchase of shares of respondent No.4 company (M/s. Himatsingka Seide Ltd.) and its receipt between contesting parties namely Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.1 is a share broker involved through whom both parties have purchased the shares.

It is the case of the Appellant that 200 shares which were purchased ‘for him’ by Respondent No.1 broker, was ‘wrongly given/transferred to’ Respondent No.2 Mr. Vinod Abrol. It is the contention of the Appellant that the shares which are wrongly transferred / given to Respondent No.2 are transferred by him to Respondent No.3.

On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondent No.2 that he had placed an order for purchase of 400 shares from the Respondent No.1 broker. This case is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Broker. According to learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 Broker, the order placed

2/4

Karnik

12 IA 18239 of 2023 -11637 OF 2024 C.doc

by Respondent No. 2 was only for 200 shares.

It appears that for the wrong transfer of shares, an arbitration took place between Respondent No.1-Broker and Respondent No.2, which resulted into an order of return of shares or its worth along with an accrued benefits. It is not disputed that the Appellant was not party to that arbitration. It is also not disputed that Respondent No.2 paid the monetary worth of 200 shares along with the accrued benefits thereon to Respondent No.1 Broker, who added interest component to it and paid the said amount to the Appellant, which is received by the Appellant without prejudice.

In the meantime, the Respondent No.2 deposited certain amount in this Court under the interim order passed by this Court.

The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, has held that it does not have jurisdiction to decide the contention raised by the Appellant and therefore suit has been dismissed. However, the trial Court while dismissing the suit directed that the amount and disputed shares deposited by Respondent No.2 in the Court, be released in favour of Respondent No.2. Effect of this Clause 3 of the impugned decree has been stayed by this Court under order dated 20/12/2023, as noted above.

From the perusal of the applications and affidavit in reply filed by the contesting parties, at this stage, there is no clarity as to whether 200 shares which were purchased for Appellant, the same shares were transferred wrongly to Respondent No.2 or some other set of shares were transferred by Respondent No.1 Broker to Respondent No.2 as claimed by him.

The sum and substance of the argument, at least that can be borne out from the submissions and documents on record, is that irrespective of the

3/4

Karnik

12 IA 18239 of 2023 -11637 OF 2024 C.doc

arbitration proceedings between Respondent No.1 Broker and Respondent No.2, to which Appellant was not party, even if the monetary worth of shares is paid back, entitlement to increase in the shares in the form of bonus shares, split shares and rights issue shares (which is substantial - 4500 according to the Appellants and 3600 according to Respondent No.2) will have to be considered.

The aspect regarding jurisdiction of the Court shall also be required to be tested at the time of final hearing of appeal. It will have to be tested whether the return of monetary worth arising out of the arbitration award can satisfy the claim of the Appellant.

In that view of the matter, the ad-interim order granted on 20/12/2023 is required to be continued during pendency of the appeal and for the same reason, the amount which is lying in the Court can not be permitted to be withdrawn at this stage.

Hence, both the applications are disposed of by passing following order.:

a. IA/11637/2024 is rejected.

b. IA/18239/2023 is allowed in terms of paragraph 5 of the Order dated 20/12/2023, which shall operate during pendency of the appeal.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

4/4

Karnik

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the interim relief granted by this Court's order dated 20/12/2023 — staying the effect of Clause 3 of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 04/11/2023 and restraining the Respondents from creating third party interests in the disputed, bonus, split and rights issue shares — should continue during the pendency of the appeal (I.A. No.18239 of 2023).¶para 2
The court held
The ad-interim order granted on 20/12/2023 (restraint against creation of third party interests in the subject shares and bonus, split and rights issue shares) is required to be, and is, continued during the pendency of the appeal.ratio¶para 13
2.
Whether Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (defendant Nos.2 and 3), as Applicants in I.A. No.11637 of 2024, should be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.26,932/- with accrued interest that was deposited in this Court.¶para 2
The court held
For the same reason, the amount lying deposited in the Court cannot be permitted to be withdrawn at this stage; consequently I.A. No.11637 of 2024 seeking withdrawal of Rs.26,932/- with accrued interest is rejected.ratio¶para 13
3.
Whether the 200 shares purchased for the Appellant through Respondent No.1 broker were themselves the shares wrongly transferred to Respondent No.2, or some other set of shares was transferred (Respondent No.2 claims he placed an order for 400 shares; the broker's counsel maintains the order was only for 200 shares) — the Court records that at this stage there is no clarity on this point.¶para 10
4.
Whether, notwithstanding payment of the monetary worth of the shares pursuant to the arbitration between Respondent No.1 broker and Respondent No.2, the Appellant retains an entitlement to accretion in the shares by way of bonus, split and rights issue shares (described as substantial: 4500 according to the Appellants and 3600 according to Respondent No.2), which the Court holds will have to be considered.¶para 11
The court held
Irrespective of the arbitration proceedings between Respondent No.1 broker and Respondent No.2 (to which the Appellant was not a party), even if the monetary worth of the shares has been paid back, the Appellant's entitlement to increase in the shares in the form of bonus shares, split shares and rights issue shares — described as substantial, being 4500 according to the Appellants and 3600 according to Respondent No.2 — will have to be considered; this is the principal ground for continuing the interim restraint during the appeal.ratio¶para 11
5.
Whether the Court had jurisdiction over the Appellant's contention, and whether the return of the monetary worth of the shares arising out of the arbitration award can satisfy the Appellant's claim — questions which the Court states shall be tested at the time of the final hearing of the appeal.¶para 12
The court held
The question of jurisdiction of the Court, and the question whether the return of the monetary worth arising out of the arbitration award can satisfy the claim of the Appellant, are expressly left open and shall be tested at the time of the final hearing of the appeal; they are not decided in this order.obiter¶para 12