IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.4491 OF 1997 Neeta C. Jain and another ..Plaintiffs. Vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and others ..Defendants. .... Mr. S.K. Jain for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1st October, 2009. P.C. : 1. The suit has been instituted for a mandatory order and injunction against the First Defendant to issue 200 duplicate shares in lieu of 400 lost shares and for consequential reliefs. The First Plaintiff together with the Second Plaintiff had applied for 600 shares of the Defendant and an amount of Rs.24,000/- was deposited with the application. The Defendant allotted 410 shares and had issued share certificate Nos. 03697036 to 40 for 205 shares with Distinctive Nos.0274028935 to 9139 and for another 205 shares issued Share Certificate Nos.03697041 to 41 with Distinctive Nos.0274029140 to 9344. For the allotment of 410 shares by the Defendant, the Plaintiff received a final call notice from the Defendant on 13th April, 1993. An amount of Rs.16,400/- was paid to the Defendant by the First Plaintiff against receipt. According to the Plaintiff the procedure was that the original call notices with endorsed call money receipts were required to be surrendered to the Defendant along with share certificates to enable the Defendant to make an endorsement on the share certificate in acknowledgment of the receipt of the balance share money. According to the Plaintiff they had intended to sell 400 shares and had kept the signed transfer deeds ready. The shares were, however, lost in August 1993. The Defendant was informed by a letter dated 25th August, 1993 of the loss of 400 shares and a police complaint was filed on 28th August, 1993. By a letter dated 16th November, 1993 the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of having received two transfer deeds of 50 shares each from one Brijmohan Bhatia and from one Sheetal Bhatia. Upon inspection of the documents with the registered office of the Defendant, the Plaintiff found that their signatures have been forged on fabricated transfer deeds. This was recorded by a letter dated 22nd November, 1993. 2. The suit was originally instituted before the City Civil Court when an ad interim injunction was granted on 21st April, 1995 against the transfer of the shares. The Motion was made absolute on 9th March, 1995. The suit against Defendant Nos.2 and 8 was withdrawn. Subsequently, on the issue of valuation, the suit was allowed to be returned for presentation before this Court. A Motion for interim relief was moved before this Court on which ad interim orders were passed on 17th December, 1997. The Motion is stated to have been made absolute on 13th August, 1998. 3. After the service of the writ of summons, no written statement has been filed by the Defendants. The averments contained in the Plaint have not been contested. The Plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief of the First Plaintiff and a compilation of the documents. In the absence of any contest, the claim has been duly proved on the basis of the evidence on the record. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Defendant shall proceed to issue duplicate share certificates by cancelling the original share certificates which have been lost. *****