1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR S A. No. 113 OF 2009 Ashok Bulakidasji Rathi v. Tata Share Registry Ltd. & anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.R. Choudhari advocate for the Appellant . Mr. Sagar A. Ashirgade Advocate for Res. no.2. .... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 17 th JUNE, 2009. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that though the appellant had purchased ten shares of TISCO which were later on split into hundred, no delivery of shares was effected to the appellant since respondent no.2 deliberately made a false complaint to the police station that the share certificates in physical form were lost and, therefore, the courts below have erred in recording finding though concurrently that the appellant/ plaintiff was not entitled to those shares. 2 3. Per contra, Mr.Ashirgade, learned counsel for respondent no.2, opposed the appeal and argued that there is a concurrent finding of fact about failure of appellant to prove the actual purchase of 10 shares of TISCO as pleaded by him in the plaint. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment recorded by the courts below. I find that there is a concurrent finding of fact and rather it is not in dispute that the appellant miserably failed to produce any evidence on record that he paid the purchase price for purchase of those ten shares of TISCO. In the absence of proof about payment of purchase price, I am afraid that the appellant could become owner thereof. If the appellant could become owner of the said shares, no right could be carved out in favour of the appellant to claim those shares either before or after split and therefore the very foundation in the suit does not exist. In the result, there is no substantial question of law. Appeal is devoid of merit. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE 3 /TA/