9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase of different kind of shares and securities on various stock exchanges in India. In pursuance of it, the petitioner-company purchased 200 shares of R-1-company of face value of Rs. 10 each (now 2000 shares of face value of Re. 1 each, as the face value of shares of R-1-company is reduced from Rs. 10 to Re. 1 each) of R-1-company through R-2, J S Shany & Co., a share broker, vide share certificate Nos.-1216215 and 1216216 bearing distinctive Nos. 130558868-967 and 130558968-9067, respectively for Rs. 59,200 at the rate of Rs.296 per share vide bill No.3488 dated 26th October, 1995 (Annexure 3) duly issued by R-2 in favour of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-company lost the above share certificates in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d giving 200 shares with the above said distinctive numbers for Rs. 59,200 by a letter written by R-2 (Annexure 9). The petitioner also filed account statement of the petitioner-company (Annexure 10) disclosing payment towards 200 shares on 28th October, 1995. For having the petitioner pleaded its entitlement over the disputed shares, it sought declaration and mandatory injunction for declaring the transferring of shares as invalid and for transfer of the same in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a rejoinder almost reiterating the averments of the petition. 3. R-1 filed reply to the petition stating that disputed 200 shares comprising share certificate Nos.1216215 and 1216216 were standing in the name of R-3 Ms. Alka Goye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates. Since there is no stay from any competent forum, R-1-company transferred the shares in accordance with the provisions of law, thereby sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. R-3 filed reply stating that she was the original owner of the shares; she transferred the above-said 200 shares in favour of one Arora Associates, Ferozepur City, Punjab. She further stated that it is very much evident in the statement of account of Arora Associates and in her account that a valid transfer was made in favour of R-4, R-5 and R-6 as disclosed in the document filed along with her reply sent to Company Law Board ('CLB'). 5. The authorised representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner made his submissions reiterating the pleadings of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the civil court seeking reliefs on the self-same cause of action wherein it did not withdraw the suit stating that CLB has jurisdiction over the matter. It was not even taken as an issue in the judgment passed by the civil court. Since the issue has been already tried and adjudicated by a civil court in the suit supra between the same parties on the same cause of action the present petition is hit by res judicata as the petitioner is re-agitating over the self-same cause of action before this CLB on the ground that the CLB has the jurisdiction to try this case. 8. The citation supra relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case because in that impugned judgment High Court directed the parties to approach civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
