JABED ALI SARKER Vs. DR. SULTAN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court Division affirming that of the learned single judge of that division who directed rectification of the Share Register of respondent No. 2 a Company incorporated under the Companies Act on an application filed by Respondent No. 1 under section 33 of the said Act.

(2.) The case of Respondent No. 1 is that on 18-9-69 he had purchased 520 shares of the Respondent company (Respondent No.2) from Kamala Kanta Chakraborty who executed an instrument in that behalf embossed on a plain paper affixed with share transfer adhesive stamps and that on the advise of his lawyer as a measure of precaution, he obtained on the same date a deed of transfer from she said Kamala Kanta Chakraborty embossed on non-judicial stamp The said transferor delivered the share Certified at the time of execution of the deed of transfer to the respondent No. 1 by giving a letter of authority in favour of his younger brother to the State Bank of Pakistan.

(3.) The appellant claimed to have purchased the said 520 shares in respondent No. 2 on 12-4-70 for Taka 4,600/00 by a deed of transfer executed on non judicial stamps wroth Taka 70/00 and applied to the Company for mutation of his name on 19-4-170 in the Share Register in place of the transferor. Kamala Kanta Chakraborty. The appellant alleged that the deeds of transfer of respondent No. 1 are not genuine. The non-judicial stamps which were used as the deed of transfer by the transferor were ante-date and fabricated and the said stamps were not sold to the transferor on the date as mentioned in the stumps. The information slip received from the Rajshahi Collectorate shows the last number to be 3656 of September, 1969). The appellant obtained the share certificate fraudulently and collusively and the Bank malafide and illegally handed over the share certificate to the respondent No. 1. The Board of Directors, of respondent No. 2 in a meeting held on 21-10-70, resolved that it would mutate the name of the person, who would be found by the Court to be genuine transferee.