UNITECH LIMITED Vs. GRIDHAR GOPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 10-F of the Companies Act has been filed against the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) dated 04.06.2010 wherein on an application filed by Gridhar Gopal Sharma (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1) under Section 111-A of the Companies Act, a direction had been given to M/s Unitech Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) to rectify the register of members by substituting the name of respondent No. 1 in place of Lalit Kumar Goyal (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 3) qua 100 shares and to issue duplicate shares to Respondent No. 1 or in the alternate to buy the shares from the open market and allot them to Respondent No. 1.

(2.) A petition under Section 111-A (3) had been filed by respondent No. 1 in the CLB. His contention was that he was the owner of 100 shares allotted to him by the appellant company. He had the physical possession of the said shares bearing share certificate No. 5998 and distinctive No. from 599701 to 599800 with folio No. 0005998. The petitioner was receiving dividends from time to time on the aforenoted shares. In the year 2006, the petitioner had changed his residence and shifted to Model Town; during transit, he misplaced some important documents including his share certificate along with share transfer deeds. On 28.02.2006, this information was given to the appellant who vide letter dated 23.03.2006 asked him to complete certain formalities for issuance of duplicate shares certificate. A complaint had been lodged in the concerned Police Station on 11.05.2006 which alongwith an indemnity bond and affidavit dated 31.10.2006 and a demand draft of Rs.1,000/- was sent to the appellant company along with a covering letter dated 13.11.2006 duly acknowledged by the appellant on the same date.

(3.) Vide a subsequent letter dated 18.11.2006, the appellant company/the Share Transfer Agent (STA) wrote to respondent No. 1 informing him that his letter dated 13.11.2006 was deficient in many respects; signatures did not tally and the same be attested by a nationalized bank; the police complaint was unattested; the affidavit and the indemnity bond were also incomplete; copy of his ID proof duly attested was also required.