MANGESH VASANT TENDULKAR Vs. I T C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the defendants have been served. None appears inspite of service. On 21st October, 1997 this Court granted ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). It is the case of the plaintiff that 2000 shares were purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No.1 through defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.3 to 10 are said to be the persons in whose names some of the suit shares had been transferred. Others have been lodged for transfer. The original plaintiffs purchased 4000 shares of defendant No.1 from the market through defendant No.2. Out of the 4000 shares, the original plaintiff took delivery of 2000 shares which are described in Exhibit-A. The plaintiff has paid the entire consideration amount by cheque No.411258 dated 19-3-97 for a sum of Rs.14,95,033.75 ps. Another cheque No.709705 dated 26-3-97 has also been given for a sum of Rs.10,75,286.45. Both the cheques were drawn on Bank of Baroda, University Branch, Bombay-400 023. Defendant No.2 delivered the share certificates along with the necessary transfer-deeds signed by the transferors/original owners of the suit shares to the original plaintiff. The original plaintiffs completed the transfer deeds by putting their names and signatures in the columns provided for transferees. Thereafter the share certificates along with the duly completed transfer deeds were sent to defendant No.1 by registered post A.D. on 19th May, 1997. This letter is stated to have been lost in transit. When the plaintiff did not receive any acknowledgments he made enquiries from the postal department by letter dated 13th June, 1997. A letter was also written on 31st July, 1997 by registered post A.D. to defendant No.1. By letter dated 5th August, 1997 the postal department informed the original plaintiff that the registered parcel containing the suit shares were lost in transit. The original plaintiff therefore, on 13th August, 1997 lodged the police complaint. The aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of defendant No.1. An officer of defendant No.1 assured the original plaintiff that the shares were still standing in the names of the original owners. An assurance was also given that the shares will not be transferred to any other person and that necessary instructions have been fed into the computer. Necessary information was also given to the Bombay Stock Exchange requesting them not to entertain any further transactions in the suit shares. Later on, however, by letter dated 5th September, 1997, defendant No.1 informed the original plaintiff that out of the suit shares, certain shares were transferred in the name of various persons. The details of the shares which were transferred in the name of third parties were given in a letter dated 18th September, 1997. These shares have been transferred to defendant Nos.3 to 10.

(2.) IN view of the above, the interest of the plaintiff has to be protected. Prima facie, I am of the view that the shares have been stolen. Thereafter they have been sold to Defendant Nos.3 to 10. Therefore, they can have no right in the aforesaid shares. Apart from this, inspite of service none appears on behalf of the defendants. No reply has been filed to the affidavit in support. Therefore, the averments made in the plaint as also in the affidavit in support remain uncontroverted. In view of the above, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) except the power of sale. Prayer clause (a) reads as under: