1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2498 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 157 OF 2007 Rajendra Yeshwant Shah & Anr. ...Plaintiffs vs. Gillette India Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.Amol Doijode for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Ankur Gupta i/b. M/s.Udwadia & Udeshi for Defendant Nos.21 and 28. Mr.Rakesh Singh i/b. M/s.Ramesh Makhija & Co. for Defendant No.24. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel, for the plaintiffs and Defendant No.24. None appears on behalf of other defendants though they were served. Plaintiffs have filed affidavit of service. It is taken on record. 2 The plaintiffs have taken out Second Notice of Motion pursuant to liberty granted by this 2 Court by Order dated 25th July, 2000 passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No.2025/2000. In para 8 of the said order, liberty was granted to the plaintiffs to apply again. The plaintiffs have filed this Motion and are seeking the following reliefs :- (a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, Judgment and Decree be passed on Admission, directing the 1st Defendant to handover to the Plaintiffs 600 shares as per the SCHEDULE-I annexed hereto; (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the 1st Defendant be directed to handover to the Plaintiffs 1100 shares as per the SCHEDULE-II annexed hereto; 3 Counsel for the plaintiffs has invited my attention to Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 and has 3 submitted that these shares are hold by first defendant company and are not claimed by any other defendants and any third party. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs are the owners of 700 shares of defendant no.1 company which was stolen and thereafter, a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff with MRA Marg Police Station. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed. 4 Since no reply has been filed by the other defendants and admittedly, defendant no.24 was not concerned with the shares which are mentioned in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the chamber summons, the averments made by the plaintiffs in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion are not controverted. The fact that therefore, these shares which are mentioned in Schedule 1 and Schedule 3 are with the company, has not been denied by the defendant no.1 company. 5 Under these circumstances and in view of 4 the liberty granted by this Court by its order dated 25.7.2000, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 6 Notice of Motion is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)