GOMTI DEVI BHARUKA Vs. VASUVIUS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against orders dated 8.6.1998 and dated 22.6.1998. It appears that the complainant is the appellant here. She prayed for discovery of the documents and for a direction upon the opposite parties to discover documents in question. It appears that the Forum granted adjournments on several occasions to file a proper petition for discovery of documents, but the complainant did not avail of that opportunity. Accordingly the prayer for discovery of documents was rejected by order dated 8.6.1998.

(2.) The matter came up for final hearing on 22.6.1998 when learned Advocate appearing for the complainant did not make any submission before the Forum on the ground that their prayer for discovery of documents had not been allowed. Anyway, it appears that the complainant approached the Forum praying for direction upon opposite party No.1 for issue of duplicate share certificates in respect of 100 shares which were lost by the complainant in the year 1994 and also for restraining the opposite parties from transferring the said share certificates to any third person. The Forum observed that the shares having been lost from the custody of the complainant the opposite party cannot be made liable for the alleged deficiency in service.

(3.) On perusal of the papers available with the record it appears that the complainant approached the Forum praying for direction upon opposite party No.1 for issue of duplicate share certificates in respect of 100 shares which she had lost. It appears from the letter of Company viz. O. P. No.1 dated 21.11.1996 that the share certificates in question along with a valid transfer deed were lodged by the U. T. I. sometime in 1995. It also appears therefrom that the purported signature of the complainant appearing therein had been attested by Mr. N. K. Basu, Notary Public, Calcutta. It further appears that the Company wanted an order from a competent Court of jurisdiction for dealing with the matter of issuing duplicate certificate. It is evident that this request of the Company was not complied with. On examination of the matter in proper perspective we find that this is a question of title to shares in dispute which cannot be adjudicated by the Forum or the Commission. The complainant may approach the Civil Court for relief if so advised. With this observation the appeal be dismissed.