KAUSHALYA DEVI MARWAHA Vs. D N AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Kaushalya Devi Marwaha is the petitioner before us and Mr. D.N. Aggarwal is the respondent. During the proceedings, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, the petitioner, died and her legal heir was impleaded in the case vide our Order dated 4th January, 1996. Her legal heir Mrs. Veena Sarpal who is her sole legal representative was already on record as respondent No. 6 in the case. Mr. Madhusudan Upadhyay, respondent No. 3 also died during the proceedings and his legal representatives were impleaded in accordance with our Order dated the 18th March, 1996.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that Smt. Kaushalya Devi, the appellant, sold 200 shares of M/s. Hindustan Levers Ltd. to the respondent Shri D.N. Aggarwal at the rate of Rs. 140/ - per share on 28.6.91 for a sum for Rs. 28,700/ -. 100 shares were delivered on 28.6.91 itself and the . remaining 100 shares were to be delivered on the encashment of the cheque. Shri D.N. Aggarwal, who bought these shares, sold them to another person through M/s. Gupta Associates, Share Brokers. He, however, came to know from the share broker that the shares were not transferred in the name of the buyer because the signature of Smt. Kaushalya Devi on the transfer deed did not tally with her signatures in the records of the Company. This took Mr. Aggarwal by surprise and he made a complaint to the petitioner about it. The petitioner's contention is that the transfer deeds were to be handed over after 21.8.91, the record date for bonus shares and dividend which were announced on 22.7.91. It may be mentioned again that the sale transaction of shares took place on 28.6.91. The contention of the petitioner throughout has been that she sold the shares at the rate of Rs. 140/ - whereas the prevailing market price was Rs. 163/ -per share because she wanted to retain the right of the bonus shares and the dividend announced on 22.7.91 and, therefore, she did not hand over the transfer deed till 21.8.91. It is the respondent Shri Aggarwal, who forged her signatures and, therefore, she was not liable for refusal of transfer in the name of Shri Kanchan Kakkar to whom they were sold through M/s. Gupta Investment Company.

(3.) WE have gone through the records of this case and heard the learned Counsel on both sides. We do not find any error of law or of jurisdiction in the order of the State Commission, nor we consider their appreciation of facts to be wrong. However, we find that the date from which interest is to be calculated has not been specifically mentioned in the Order of the State Commission specifically so as to remove any confusion in this regard. It may be noted here that the sale transaction took place on 28.6.91. On that date a pay order for Rs. 15,800/ - and a cheque for Rs. 12,900 / - were given by Shri D.N. Aggarwal to the late Mrs. Kaushalya Devi Marwah. Allowing a period of one week for encashment etc. of the Pay Order and cheque, we consider it appropriate to fix the date from which interest is to be calculated as 6th July, 1991. With this modification in the Order of the State Commission, we dismiss this Revision Petition with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.