LAWS(NCD)-2006-5-109

DATAMATICS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Vs. WOSI KHAN

Decided On May 29, 2006
DATAMATICS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. Appellant
V/S
WOSI KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by M/s. Datamatics Financial Services Ltd. against the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by Jharkhand State Commission, Ranchi in Appeal No. 8/2004.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are: The petitioners were appointed by the SBI Mutual Fund as the Registrars and Transfer Agents for Magnum Multiplier Plus Scheme 1993 (MMPS'93). The petitioners are now known as M/s. Datamatics Financial Software & Services Ltd. Respondents Mr. Wosi Khan and Mr. Mozahid Khan purchased 5,000 MMPS'93 shares at the rate of Rs. 10 each by making a payment of Rs. 50,000. After processing, these shares were allotted to respondents by the petitioner under Folio No. 0471569 and were despatched the same to the respondents at the address recorded in the application form filed by the respondents. The said shares were received back undelivered by the postal authorities. The petitioner thereafter informed the respondents by letter dated 15.9.1993 and subsequently by way of a reminder on 23.6.1994 for the confirmation of the correct address by the respondents. These letters were admitted to have been received by the respondents. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said certificates were re-despatched to the respondents at the same address and the same were not received and delivered again from the postal department.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a normal presumption that the said certificates were received by the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that in the month of May, 1998 they received the aforesaid certificates for transfer from one Shah Mradula having address 22, Old Lalan Building, Devi Dayal Road, Panch Rasta Mulund (West), Mumbai. Since the thumb impression and the signatures of the respondents on the relevant transfer deed were prima facie found to be correct and as there was neither any valid objection nor any FIR or any Court prohibitory order to restrain the transfer, the petitioner affected the transfer, as requested.