1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.270 OF 1997 Mrs.Kanan Sheth. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. & Anr. ...Defendants. .... Mr. S.K. Jain for the Plaintiff. None. for the Defendants. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 25, 2009. P.C. The subject matter of the suit is 19,600 equity shares of the First Defendant and 14,700 bonus shares issued by the First Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Second Defendant has no right, title or interest therein; and that the purported transfer of the said shares and issuance of the bonus shares by the First Defendant to the Second Defendant is illegal. The Plaintiff further seeks a decree that the Second Defendant be ordered to deliver up the said equity shares and the bonus shares to the 2 Plaintiff and that the First Defendant be ordered and directed to de- register the aforesaid shares from the name of the Second Defendant and to duly transfer and register them in the name of the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff was at the material time, a Director of a Company which was a member of the Mumbai Stock Exchange. On or about 30th August 1996, the Plaintiff purchased 19,600 equity shares of the First Defendant from M/s.R.R. Bajaj, Share and stock Broker in Patavat No.B-12 and made payment of the purchase price. Upon completion of the transaction, the Plaintiff received the shares along with duly signed blank transfer forms. The Plaintiff has stated that she was in possession of the original delivery slip dated 30th August 1996 of the Stock Exchange which came to be lost and misplaced. A typed copy has been placed on the record and the Plaintiff has sought leave to adduce secondary evidence. The Plaintiff has produced the original contract note bearing No.C-12/30/0031 and the original Bill Group B/12/0039 for the period from 17th August 1996 to 30th August 1996 issued by the clearing member of the Stock 3 Exchange. In October 1996, the Plaintiff desired to have the shares duly transfered in her name when it was found that the share certificates and the transfer forms were missing and/or stolen. A complaint was lodged with the M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai on 2nd November 1996. On 31st October 1996, the Plaintiff addressed a letter to the First Defendant to which there was a reply dated 6th November 1996. A complaint was addressed to the Mumbai Stock Exchange on 6th December 1996. The Stock Exchange endorsed a copy of the complaint to the First Defendant on 6th December 1996. In reply, the First Defendant by a letter dated 9th December 1996 furnished the name and address of the Second Defendant as the transferee of the shares. 3. The Plaintiff has stated that the First Defendant issued bonus shares in the ratio of 4 : 1 in December 1996 making a total of 14,700 bonus shares. 4. The Plaintiff has averred that the Second Defendant has not 4 paid any consideration for the shares and that the shares were transferred in the records of the First Defendant dishonestly and surreptitiously on the basis of stolen share certificates and blank transfer forms. It has been averred that the Second Defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value. 5. On 9th January 1998, a statement was made on behalf of the First and Second Defendants that pending the hearing the final disposal of the suit, the Defendants shall not transfer, encumber or in any manner part with possession of the suit shares except with the prior permission of the Court. 6. The Defendants have not filed written statements despite service of the writ of summons. The averments contained in the plaint have gone uncontroverted. The Plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief in support of the averments contained in the plaint and has produced the delivery slip dated 30th August 1996, the original Contract Note, the original bill and a certificate 5 issued by the M.R.A. Marg Police Station. Permission is granted to the Plaintiff to lead secondary evidence in respect of which originals are not available. The Plaintiff has established her claim on the basis of the evidence led and the documentary evidence produced. The suit shall accordingly, stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) and (i). .....