IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3998 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2945 OF 2007 Hosi Phiroz Bilmoria .....Plaintiff V. .M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd.. and others .....Defendants Mr. Pradeep Vasudeo for the plaintiff None for the defendants CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J DATE : 23 RD JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1 The above Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiff for the following relief; “(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the 1st Defendant be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from transferring to the 2nd Defendant the said 1800 shares more particularly described in Exh. ‘A’ to the plaint either by itself or through its agents and/or servants as the case may be. “ 2 It is the case of the plaintiff that his wife is the registered owner of the 1800 shares and he and his wife were residing in Dubai since 1980. As they were residing abroad, for the sake of convenience the shares were kept with the mother of the plaintiff’s wife. After his wife expired on 13th November, 2001 in Dubai, he carried her body to Mumbai for the sake of last rites on 14 March, 2002. On or about 27th September, 2007, he received a letter dated 18th September, 2007 from the 1st defendant- company informing him that there was an application for transfer of the said shares which are standing in his name to the name of the 2nd defendant. The share transfer forms were purported to have been executed on 4th October, 2002 and revalidated on 17th September, 2007. The 1st defendant-company informed him that unless it heard from him to the contrary on or before 29th September, 2007, it would be assumed that the transfers were in order and the same would be dealt with in the usual manner. The plaintiff replied to the 1st defendant-company that he never sold the shares and that his signatures were forged and that he is not aware and did not come in contact with Mr. G.B. Panchal, who is alleged to be the witness on the transfer form, who is added as defendant No.3 in the present suit. The plaintiff has also lodged a complaint with the Colaba Police Station on 8th October, 2007 in respect of forgery regarding the said transfer forms. Pertinently, the defendant No. 3, who is alleged to have signed the transfer form in his written statement has also stated that the signatures which appear on the transfer forms are not his signatures and the same are forged. 3 The case of the defendant No.2 in his reply is that he is bonafide purchaser for value without notice and the shares were revalidated every year and that he applied for transfer of the shares some time in September, 2007. 4 The motion was called out in the morning session, and as none appeared on behalf of the defendants, it was kept back. In the afternoon session the matter was called out again, however, again none appeared on behalf of the defendants. 5 By ad-interim order dated 26.10.2007 this Court has granted an order of status quo with regard to the suit shares till hearing of the motion. Having heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and on perusal of the material on record, I find that prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff and the balance of convenience is in his favour and irreparable loss would be caused to him if the reliefs prayed in the Notice of Motion are not be granted. 6 Consequently, the Notice of Motion made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 7 The Notice of Motion to stand disposed of accordingly . A.A.SAYED, J.