BHIMA GOVINDAN Vs. RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KANTHI Narahari, Judicial Member -The present petition is filed under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) seeking direction to the 3rd Respondent to surrender the duplicate share certificate and also sought direction to the 2nd Respondent to return the original share certificates to the Petitioner duly transferred in his name.

(2.) SHRI P.K. Vankataraman, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner purchased 100 shares of the R1 -company from Respondent No. 3 through the authorized broker, i.e., Alexander Associates of Cochin Stock Exchange on 29.1.1994. The Respondent No. 3 executed valid transfer deed and surrendered the original share certificates covering 100 shares. Thus, the requirement for the transfer of 100 shares from R3 to the Petitioner was under due compliance with Section 108 of the Act. The Petitioner revalidated the transfer deed on 18.4.2007 and forwarded the same to the 2nd Respondent on 25.4.2007. Upon lodgment of original share certificate for transfer the R2 refused to transfer the said shares and communicated vide their letter dated 18.5.2007 whereby it is stated that since the share certificates have been lost by the registered holder, duplicate share certificates have been issued to the registered holder on 9.6.2006. Further, the R2 stated that the certificates lodged for transfer are no more valid and the same are cancelled. The R3 fraudulently sought and obtained duplicate share certificates by willfully suppressing the transaction with the Petitioner. The R3 has mis -appropriated the dividends and other lawful corporate benefits.

(3.) THE R3 filed reply to the petition. It is stated that the petition is hopelessly time barred on the ground that he claims to have been purchased shares in the year 1993 from his broker and approached this bench after lapse of 17 years. It is also stated that the R3 does not know the Petitioner and does not have any privities of contract with the Petitioner regarding the subject shares. Further, it is also stated that they did not receive any consideration from the Petitioner either directly or indirectly through his broker. If the Petitioner has any grievance then it is for him to take up the matter with the broker from whom he claimed to have purchased the shares and to whom he may have paid the consideration. It is also stated that they claimed duplicate shares after completing procedural requirement. The R2 issued duplicate share certificate as per law. After receiving the duplicate shares the R3 got them demoted and sold the same. In view of the statement made in the reply, they prayed for dismissal of the petition with cost.