RRAMILA GUPTA Vs. LUPIN CHEMICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint has been filed by Smt. Pramila Gupta and her husband Sri Anil Kumar Gupta for issuing a direction to M/s. Lupin Chemicals Limited not to cancel the share certificates purchased by them from the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 Sri Vikas Khatri and Sri Mukesh Kumar Rastogi. Acompensation of Rs. 10,00,000 has also been prayed for the humiliation they had suffered consequent to criminal proceedings initiated against them. Further a claim of Rs. 5,00,000 is also preferred for physical discomfort and mental agony besides Rs. 30,000 they had allegedly incurred in medical and litigation expenses.

(2.) AS pleaded in the complaint, the two complainants have purchased 200 shares on 15.2.1994 from Sri Mukesh Kumar Rastogi through Sri Vikas Khatri, the sub -broker on payment of Rs. 11,000 andrequestedM/s. Lupin Chemicals Limited to transfer the said shares in their names. The aforesaid company acceded to the request of the complainants and transferred the shares with the intimation vide letter dated 15.9.1994. However, subsequently the company cancelled the transfer of the share certificates in their names and asked them to surrender the certificates to the company. The details of the certificates are as follows: Folio No. Certificate No. Number of Shares Name of Transferee 100085 100085 58628 58627 100 100 Pramila Gupta Pramila Gupta

(3.) THE complainant received a letter from Sri Mukesh Kumar Rastogi by virtue of which it was conveyed to them that the latter was the rightful owner of the aforesaid share certificates and he had neither transferred those shares to anyone nor he had authorized someone to do so. Sri Rastogi also lodged a complaint with the S.S.P. whereupon the police took an action and the complainant had suffered in jail for about 16 days. As a matter of fact, the complainants are the bona fide purchasers of the afore said share certificates and since the Lupin Chemicals Limited had validly transferred these shares in their favour, the said company was not competent to have cancelled the transfer.