RAM SAROOP NADKARNI Vs. LARSON & TOUBRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 08.02.2002, whereby, the suit of the Plaintiff stood dismissed.

(2.) The Plaintiff had filed his suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against Defendant No. 1, M/s Larson & Toubro Ltd. (L & T Ltd.), the company whose shares had been purchased by the Plaintiff. Averment of the Plaintiff was that he had purchased 200 equity shares of Defendant No. 1 from Defendant No. 2 and 100 equity shares of Defendant No. 1 from Defendant No. 3. The distinctive numbers of the said shares have been mentioned in the plaint. The dates of the bill of which these purchases were made have also been detailed. Further contention of the Plaintiff was that on 19.06.1992, the said shares along with his other shares of other companies were stolen from his car. FIR No. 377/1992 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. However, the case could not be solved. On 24.06.1992, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the company informing him about the loss of the shares; he requested for duplicate share certificates. This request for issuance of duplicate share certificates was reiterated on 12.08.1992, 27.08.1992, 10.10.1992, 02.12.1992, 07.01.1993, 08.01.1993 thereafter again on 12.01.1993. On 15.01.1993, the Plaintiff received a communication from the Defendant company requiring certain details. On 14.03.1993, Defendant requested the Plaintiff to send him the correct registered folio number of the said shares which were accordingly sent. In spite of reminders, the Defendant No. 1, however, did not transfer the said shares in the name of the Plaintiff. Suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) The preliminary objection in the written statement was that the suit is barred under Section 10 and 113 of the Companies Act, 1956; the Company Law Board is the only forum which could decide this controversy. The trial judge relied upon the judgment of the apex court reported in , 1995 Supp (4) SCC 590 Shripal Jain v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to arrive at this finding.