1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.3015 OF 1998 Praful Manilal Shah Indian Inhabitant, residing at 58/C, Walkeshwar Road, Krishna Niwas, Bombay-400 006. .... Plaintiff - Versus - 1. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having their registered office at Ambuja Nagar, P.O. Taluka Kodinar, District Amreli, Gujarat State-362 715, and their Corporate office at 122, Maker Chamber-III, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400 021. 2. T. Siddarth Chaudhary, Indian Inhabitant, C/o Kora Raju, 8-29/2-13, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipeta, Vijayawad - 5200 010. 3. J. Bhaskar, Indian Inhabitant, B-1/3, Dr. No.55, H.W.P. Colony, Ashwapuram Post, Kammam 507 116. 4. K. Murli, Indian Inhabitant, 2 B/A, Ground Floor, `Abhishek' Apartment, Krishna Nagar, Vijaywada - 520 010. 5. Shah Intrasta Couriers, having their office at 32, Princes Street, Sharaf Mansion, Bombay-400 002. 6. D.B. Patel & Co., having their office at Old Stock Exchange Building, Ground Floor, Bombay Samachar Marg, Mumbai-400 001. .... Defendants Shri Vikas G. Naik i/b Shukla & Shukla for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATED: DECEMBER 03, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming various reliefs against the defendants. The first defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The 3 case of the plaintiff is that he purchased 400 shares of the first defendant-company through a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited under bill dated 8-8-1997 covering the settlement period between 30-7-1997 to 6-8-1997. According to the plaintiff, the payment towards the price of the said shares was made by cheque. The plaintiff's broker received 400 shares of the first defendant from the clearing house. After completing the transfer deed and affixing the requisite stamp, the plaintiff delivered the said 400 shares to M/s. D.B. Patel & Company (the sixth defendant). 2. As the plaintiff did not receive the share certificates from the agent of the first defendant, by letter dated 10-12-1997, addressed to the transfer agent of the first defendant, the plaintiff informed the said agent that the shares were duly forwarded on 4 26-8-1997. Thereafter, the plaintiff made enquiry with the sixth defendant. The sixth defendant informed the plaintiff that they had handed over the shares to M/s. Shah Intrasta Couriers (the fifth defendant herein). Thereafter, the sixth defendant informed the plaintiff that the fifth defendant has lost many parcels and in fact a complaint had been lodged by the fifth defendant with the L.T. Marg Police Station regarding loss of parcels. 3. By letter dated 18-12-1997, sent by M/s. Sharepro Service, the transfer agent of the first defendant, the plaintiff was informed that out of the said 400 shares, 300 shares have already been transferred in favour of the second to fourth defendants and the remaining 100 shares have not been transferred. Thereafter, the plaintiff by letter dated 3-1-1998 informed the said agent of the first defendant that the said 400 shares sent by him 5 must have been intercepted and stolen in transit along with the transfer deeds. Thereafter, there was correspondence made by the plaintiff with the transfer agent of the first defendant. The allegation is that the first defendant in collusion with some persons has illegally transferred the shares without any verification of the genuineness of the signature of the transferor. The contention is that the second to fourth defendants are not entitled to hold the 300 shares. Various reliefs have been claimed in the plaint, such as declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the 400 shares and for a declaration that the transfer of 300 shares out of the said 400 shares in favour of the second to fourth defendants is illegal. A decree is sought against the first defendant for transferring of the aforesaid shares in favour of the plaintiff. Further relief is sought as regards the dividends, right shares and bonus shares. 6 4. In the notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff, this Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). 5. None appears for the defendants. By order dated 9-11-2009 passed in Chamber Summons No.1215 of 2009, the plaintiff has been permitted to lead secondary evidence by production of typed copies of the originals. The plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of himself. The plaintiff has been examined on 30-11-2009. The plaintiff has proved the documents produced alongwith a separate list. The first document is a bill issued by M/s. Prasham Securities Pvt. Ltd., dated 8-8-1997 which shows that the plaintiff acquired 400 shares of the first defendant. The second document is the delivery sheet of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, showing delivery of 400 shares. There is 7 evidence on record to show that the shares along with the transfer deeds were entrusted to the sixth defendant. The fact that the plaintiff acquired 400 shares of the first defendant and that the same were lodged for transfer along with the necessary transfer deeds has been established by the plaintiff. There is no challenge to the evidence of the plaintiff by any of the defendants. 6. Now the prayers made in the suit will have to be considered. The prayer clauses (a) to (d) will have to be granted. If the first defendant is unable to transfer the said 400 shares in favour of the plaintiff, the first defendant will have to be ordered and decreed to issue fresh shares to the plaintiff along with the right shares and/or bonus shares. 7. Hence, I pass the following order: (a) The suit is decreed in terms of prayer 8 clauses (a) to (d). (b) If the first defendant fails to comply with the decree in terms of prayer (d) within a period of four months from the date on which a copy of the decree is served to the first defendant, the first defendant shall issue fresh 400 shares along with the right shares and/or bonus shares allotted on the basis of the said 400 shares after 8-8-1997. (c) The first to fourth defendants are ordered and decreed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff. (d) The first defendant shall act upon an authenticated copy of this judgment. Sd/- (A.S. Oka, J.)