D.R. SHARMA Vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner by invoking Section 111A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying this Bench to direct respondent No. 1 to transfer 32 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in the name of the petitioner and rectify the register of members accordingly. Shri Arun Kumar Jain, company secretary, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased 32 equity shares of Rs. 10 of the erstwhile company, i.e., M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., being distinctive Nos. 144867474 -7489, 258629056 -9071 covered by Share Certificates Nos. 2014912 and 20149123 (New) (Old No. 020097481 and 12863683) having Regd., Folio Nos. 030955722, 60019924, respectively, from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for a lawful consideration from the stock market through a recognised broker. The petitioner lodged the shares with the erstwhile company along with the share certificates and transfer deeds duly executed by the transferors, i.e., respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein and the petitioner being the transferee which were duly received and acknowledged by the registrar of respondent No. 1 vide their document No. 4638395 dated November 25, 1997. The petitioner approached the registrar of respondent No. 1 M/s. Karvy Computer for return of the above said 32 shares after transfer in the name of the petitioner. After a long battle the registrar of respondent No. 1 vide their letter dated January 31, 2007, informed that the shares have already been returned under objection "signature mismatch" along with the transfer deeds. But, the original share certificates along with transfer deeds were never received back by the petitioner. The registrar of respondent No. 1 by their letter advised to contact the sellers at the addresses given in the said letter. The petitioner accordingly wrote lot of letters for fresh transfer deeds to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 but did not receive any response from them. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser of the said shares from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 through stock market mechanism for valuable consideration. The petition is filed by the bona fide purchaser in the interest of justice as the petitioner is the rightful owner of the shares.

(2.) THE petitioner therefore prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) ON receipt of the complaint in September 2007, i.e., after 10 years from the date of lodgement of the said shares, respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the said shares were returned under objection in view of mismatch of the signature to the petitioner and gave the name and address of the registered holders. Respondent No. 1 company is not aware of and do not admit that the petitioner wrote several letters to the registered holders for fresh transfer deed and benefits to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as alleged and put the petitioner to strict proof thereof. Respondent No. 1 company denies that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the said shares as alleged, the petitioner has not produced a single document in respect of his ownership. The petitioner has not even prayed for declaration of his ownership in respect of the 32 shares which are admittedly standing in the name of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner is not entitled to either of the reliefs claimed as the petitioner is not the owner of the said shares. The petitioner has not produced a single document which can prove the ownership of the subject shares. There was a signature difference on the transfer deed, hence the petitioner should first prove his ownership and only after the establishment of ownership, the reliefs claimed can be granted. The petitioner is not entitled to interim reliefs, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.