AVAN CYRUS BHATHENA Vs. I T C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No.1 held 800 shares of Defendant No.1 Company. Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 are the mother and sister of Plaintiff No.1. A certain oral family arrangement was entered into by and between these parties. Plaintiff No.1 agreed to transfer shares in three lots of 300, 300 and 200 to the other family members. This Suit is not concerned with the family arrangement. The relevant Share Transfer Forms were executed and submitted by Plaintiff No.3 acting on behalf of all the parties to their broker, Defendant No.11 along with original share certificates and the transfer fee of Rs.2550/- and other incidental expenses. Defendant No.11 handed over the relevant documents and the fees to Defendant No.12 who is the share transfer agent. Defendant No.12 forwarded the documents to Defendant No.1 Company.

(2.) It is the case of the Plaintiffs' that the relevant documents did not reach Defendant No.1 but were intercepted during transmission by post and 600 shares have been wrongly transferred to Defendant No.2 and 100 shares to Defendant No.3. Remaining 100 shares have been lost in transit. It is the Plaintiffs' case that they learnt about this after several months when Defendant No.1 Company failed to effect the transfer.

(3.) In the interregnum, the 600 out of 700 shares shown transferred to Defendant Nos.2 & 3 have been later transferred to Defendant Nos.4 to 8. Defendant Nos.9 & 10 are the brokers of certain parties and have been joined as proper parties. Out of these 500 shares were transferred in favour of Defendant Nos.4 to 8 from Defendant No.2 processed through Defendant No.14 who brokered the said transaction through his sub-broker M/s. Noble Value Securities.