- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION No. 1061 OF 2007 IN SUIT No. 802 OF 2007 Aditya S. Bhujle ... Plaintiff Vs. Padmini S. Bhujle & Ors. ... Defendants *** Mr. Yogesh P. Yagnik, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Baptist D’Souza i/b Malvi Ranchoddas, for the Defendants. *** CORAM : S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009. PC :- 1. The plaintiff has sought an order restraining the transfer of shares of the third defendant Company by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2. 2. Defendant No.1 is the plaintiff’s mother. There were matrimonial disputes between defendant No.1 and her husband. The dispute was settled in terms of “Consent Terms”, filed before the Family Court. Clause 9 of the said “Consent Terms” reads as under:- - 2 - “9. Shares of Iniexcel Agencies & Services Pvt. Ltd., Krebsoge Excel P. Ltd. & Saroj Electricals P. Ltd. standing in the name of S. M. Bhujle will be ransfered at NIL. Consideration to Aditya & Anish equally along with Mrs. Padmini Bhujle as a guardian for both the children only in respect of these.” 3. Defendant No.3 is admittedly a closely held company. It is difficult to ascertain the market value of the said shares. Defendant No.1 in purported exercise as a guardian of the plaintiff sold 1500 shares which the plaintiff was entitled to, on 20th February 2006 to her brother defendant No.2. There is no valid reason for her having exercised her power as a guardian by effecting the said sale to her brother, less than one month before the plaintiff attained majority. There is no affidavit-in-reply on record. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff states that he has not been served with a copy of any affidavit-in-reply. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot be faulted for not having filed a rejoinder. I have, however, permitted the defendants to rely upon the written-statement. 4. In the written-statement it is alleged that the shares were sold for a consideration of Rs.135/- per share which was a fair value. There is no evidence to show how the alleged fair value was - 3 - arrived at. 5. Moreover, the process of sale was effected on the basis of duplicate share certificates. 6. There was no justification for defendant No. 3 to do so when the originals were admittedly in existence and traceable to the knowledge of the defendants. 7. It is necessary therefore, to protect the plaintiff’s right in respect of the said shares. 8. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The injunction shall also apply to the accretions to the said shares.