SH. BHARTESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present suit is filed by the plaintiff, claiming damages against defendant no.1 to the tune of Rs. 1,01,77,560/- (Rupees One Crore, One Lakh, Seventy Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Only) with interest @ 18% p.a, pendente lite , till realization of the demand, and a mandatory injunction against defendant no.1 to issue all the bonus shares, dividends and warrants accrued on the distinctive shares and warrant certificates to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that it had purchased 5100 shares of

(2.) DEFENDANT no.1company from M/s ESS GEE Associates (defendant no.2). These shares were registered in the name of Shri Suren Goel, Shri J.S Malik and Smt. Jagjeet Kaur Malik, who were the original allottees of the said shares. The plaintiff further purchased 2550 warrant certificates from defendant no.2 firm which were registered with the defendant no.1 company. The defendant no.1 is a registered company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of foot wears and defendant no.2 is a proprietor firm which acts as a share broker. That the plaintiff, through the defendant no.2 purchased the said shares for a consideration of Rs. 7,61,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred Only). Two sale confirmation letters dated 08.02.1995 and 14.02.1995 were issued by the original allottees in favour of defendant no.1 on receipt of full consideration amount from it. The shares and warrant certificates continued to be registered in the name of the original allottees in the record of defendant no.1.

(3.) THE plaintiff submits that the defendant no.1 refused to cancel the original shares and warrant certificates and also did not issue duplicate shares and warrant certificates. The plaintiff subsequently filed a suit (Suit No 28 of 1995) wherein it was prayed that the plaintiff be declared the exclusive owner and beneficiary of the said shares and warrant certificates and that a permanent injunction be passed against defendant no.1 restraining it from transferring or alienating the said shares and warrant certificates in the name of someone else. The suit was subsequently decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 29.07.1995. On the strength of the favorable order, the plaintiff again applied to the defendant no.1 for issuance of duplicate shares and warrant certificates, but the plaintiff submits that the defendant no. 1 refused, asking them to produce an order/direction from the Court.