9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t with a prayer that he be permitted to get himself impleaded in the main Comp.App.(AT) No. 61 of 2020, on the file of this Tribunal, to defend his interest in the shares being claimed, Appellant/Company through its Director passed on forged documents, as mentioned in the application. Also, the Applicant has sought the relief of passing of an order by this Tribunal in providing the First Respondent/ITC Ltd. to issue shares to him in the interest of justice in lieu of 'fraud' played by the Appellant. Not resting with the two reliefs, he had prayed for the relief of damages/compensation be awarded to him, as regards the 'bluff', 'goof up' and 'fraud played' by the Appellant etc. 3. On behalf of the Applicant, it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal that in the Writ Petition (Civil) bearing No. 10400/2020 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by him, on 15.12.2020, the writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court, granting liberty to the Petitioner/Intervenor to present the IA No. 260/2021 in Comp. App. (AT) No. 61 of 2020 on the file of this Tribunal. 4. A mere running of the eye of the contents of IA No. 260/2021 (impl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant, who searched for him and after some time the applicant here in, came to know about him from one of his other clients his shifting to Aligarh and when he reached his house in Aligarh, he came to know that he has already expired. The family members refused to part with the case file stating that they do not know the applicant personally. It took several rounds to Aligarh after every two-three months to persuade them to obtain the file. And after receiving the file applicant searched for lawyer dealing in company matters and after discussing the case started perusing his case through Mr. Ankit Garg, advocate with the respondent Co. for receiving back his shares. 3. That the entire exercise was started by Mr. I.C. Singhal to claim these shares, when he received a copy of the letter dated 12th June, 2017 (Annexure 3), addressed to applicant, and copy to M/s. I.C. Capital Markets Ltd. (which was already wound up in the year 2003). After receiving the said letter, Mr. I.C. Singhal started his correspondence and exchanged emails to obtain the details from M/s. ITC Ltd. and filed for claim by forging documents with the help of his family members and his employee name Shri Kris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y thereof was produced as this irregularity will surface which will negate the claim of the appellant co., and moreover no specific amount was mentioned in the said sale deed carried out in the relevant year is mentioned in it, as these shares were never bought by the appellant and this is a sham truncation to mislead the court as shares do certainly have some monitory value. Mr. I.C. Singhal, in its letter dated 24th August, 2017 (Annex-4) has stated the date of said Agreement to be 11-01-2001 (last para), whereas on the said SALE DEED the date is 18.12.2002. Had there been a genuine transaction, the differences on the dates as stated, would not have crop up which clearly creates doubt about the genuine documents being relied upon by the claimant company and its directors. Last but not the least no transaction of such shares can be made without a valid transfer deed (as M/s. IC Capital Market Ltd. was not the real owner they could not have signed the share transfer deed as the Blank Transfer Deed filed on record does not bears any broker endorsement nor does have any stock exchange validation which can be seen with a naked eye and the same is mandatory for any such transaction) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent/ITC Company had acted reasonably in accordance with law, ICCM/Appellant could not have suffered for no fault of his own. 11. The gist of the bona fide contention advancing on behalf of the Appellant is that all the averments of the Appellant/Intervenor were adjudged by the Tribunal and to the detriment of the Applicant/Intervenor and no new material(s) is brought by him in I.A. No. 260/2021 and neither has locus nor any reasonable/proper cause of information of being impleaded in the present Appeal. 12. While rounding up, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant emphatically contends that the I.A. No. 260/2021 has been filed by him before this Tribunal by the Appellant/Intervenor in a mischievous manner. 13. This Tribunal has heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Intervenor and the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and noticed their contentions. 14. Be it noted, that a party filing an Interlocutory Application making certain necessary averments to implead himself/it in the main proceedings is to make out a prima facie case for such impleadment. 15. It is an axiomatic principle in law that an 'Appeal' is a continuation of original proceedings. Bes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
