1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2476 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1759 OF 2009 Kairoos Minoo Bhaya & Anr. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Yashraj Containeurs Ltd. & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. F.E. D’Vetre, Sr. Counsel a/w. Kotwal i/b. A.M. Vernekar for the Plaintiffs. Mr. V.R. Dhond a/w. Shrivardhan Deshpande i/b. Negandhi, Shah & Himayatullah for Defendants 1 to 3. Mr. Manoj Mahambrey for Defendant 4. Mr. M.N. Ramalingaiah for Defendant 5. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 09th OCTOBER 2009. P.C. :- This is a Suit filed for declaration that the action taken by Defendant Nos.1 and 5 in freezing and/or issuing a Stop Transfer Instruction in respect of 2,10,300 equity shares of Defendant No.1 – Company is illegal, bad in law, null and void. 2. The further reliefs are for mandatory orders and directions directing Defendant Nos.1 and 5 to de-freeze the shares by removing the Stop Transfer Instructions and thereafter, effect the transfer in its records. 2 3. Mr. Dhond, learned Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 1 states that the Company took this step because there is a dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.4. However, Mr. D’Vetre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs submits that at no time the Company has disputed the entitlement of the Plaintiffs to the subject shares and therefore, the Company ought not to have taken the aforesaid steps and it is at the instance of and at the behest of Defendant No.4. 4. From the record it appears that neither averments in the plaint nor the contents of the affidavit in support of this Notice of Motion are controverted by any of the Defendants. Despite the pendency of this Suit from the month of July 2009, there are no affidavits placed on record. 5. At the hearing of this Notice of Motion, on instructions, Mr. Dhond, learned Counsel appearing for Defendant No.1 makes a statement that if within a period of three weeks from today and if the Fourth Defendant does not obtain any Court orders, then, on the expiry of the said period, the First Defendant will issue duplicate share certificates to the Plaintiffs on their complying with the requisite formalities. 6. Mr. D’Vetre states that the statement made by the First Defendant should be un-conditional and there is no necessity of waiting for any Court order. More so, when the dispute is allegedly raised in the 2004. 3 7. Having considered the rival contentions and perusing the record, so also finding that there is no reply to the Notice of Motion, it is directed that the First Defendant shall issue duplicate share certificates to the Plaintiffs on their completion of the requisite statutory formalities within a period of three weeks from today. 8. The Motion is disposed off in these terms with no order as to costs. Needless to state that once the Court directs issuance of duplicate shares, then, it necessarily means the orders freezing the shares or the instructions not to transfer them shall have no effect and should not be construed as an impediment for the Plaintiffs in obtaining the duplicate share certificates. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)