Full Judgment
Dalveer Bhandri, J.
(1) This application has been filed by Smt. Shakuntala Bali wife of S.L. Bali, in C.P.N0.42/85, under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. In this application, it is prayed that her claim with regard to 8 shares be determined. It may be pertinent to mention that in May, 1962, individual shareholders namely D.N. Sodhi and S.L. Bali developed personal differences which .led to filing of winding up Petition No. 39/73 by D.N. Sodhi.
(2) This application has been filed by Smt. Shakuntala Bali wife of S.L. Bali. It is mentioned in the application that before the petition could proceed for trial, D.N. Sodhi entered into a contract with S.L. Bali for the sale and purchase of shares among themselves and both of them agreed. The only question as to whether Mr. D.N. Sodhi had 5 shares or 21 shares be decided by the Court. She further mentioned that the applicant (Smt. Shakuntala Bali) had nothing to do with the said contract. She had mentioned that these shares were transferred by Deshraj and Mulakh Raj to her and she is in possession of original share scrips.
(3) The question of applicant's share-holding was determined in company petition by P.N. Khanna, J.'s order. The relevant .portion of that order is as under:-
'...Ifind that Smt. Shakuntala Bali is not the owner of the eight shares, which previously stood in the name of Des Raj and Mulk Raj and that the petitioner and the members of his family, i.e., his wife, his deceased brother, his two sons, Ramesh Sodhi and Suresh Sodhi and his daughter, Savita Sodhi, are the owners of 21 shares as claimed by the petitioner.............'
(4) It is mentioned that Smt. Shakuntala Bali, aggrieved by the said judgment had filed a company appeal which was also dismissed.
(5) It is also mentioned that Smt. Shakuntala Bali without waiting for the decision in appeal, had filed a Civil Suit No. 135/73, for a declaration that the order passed by P.N. Khanna, J. on 23.5.1972 was not binding on her. This suit was heard on the preliminary issue of rest judicata and was dismissed by Dilip Kapur, J. on 5th March, 1980. The finding in the Suit acquired finality because no further appeal was preferred.
(6) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused all judgments, relevant documents and pleadings. P.N.Khanna, J in his judgment dated 23.5.1972 has clearly dealt with the ownership of the shares of Smt. Shakuntala Bali.
(7) Smt. Shakuntala Bali made an incorrect statement before the Apex Court that she had no opportunity to prove the ownership of her shares. As a matter of fact, ownership of her shares has been specifically dealt with by learned Single Judge and by Division Bench and the said judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. thereforee, the applicant cannot be permitted to reopen the controversy regarding ownership of her shares which has been decided by the Company Judge and thereafter by the Division Bench of this Court. Even the Civil Suit filed by her was dismissed on the ground of resjudicata and acquired finality because no further appeal was preferred by her.
(8) In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this application and the application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.