Kesar Kanwar Bengani Vs. Itc Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[ a.n. venugopala gowda j.] these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution of india, praying to quash the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 passed on i.a.nos. 9 to 11 in o.s.no.2847/2006 on the file of the city civil judge, bangalore vide annexure - f. these petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in 'b' group this day, the court made the followingthe court :- the plaintiff claims to have lost the certificates relating to the shares held by the plaintiff in the defendant company. following the plaintiffs complaint, the defendant wrote back on june 1, 2010 saying that since a large number of shares was involved, it was the defendants policy to advise any shareholder complaining of loss of share certificates to obtain an order from court for issuance of duplicate certificates. it is not necessary to go in to the propriety of such a requirement by a listed company of the defendants magnitude. the present application is for judgment on admission. the underlying principle of order xii rule 6 of the code may not allow any order to be made on the present application. there are several reasons. the company cannot be interested in its own shares and the company is not the owner of the shares. however, it does not appear from the letter issued on june 1, 2010 by the defendant to the plaintiff that there are any other claimants for the same shares which the plaintiff has claimed in the present suit. in view of such position and since the defendant has not been represented despite repeated service, ga no.2877 of 2010 is disposed of by directing the defendant to issue duplicate shares in lieu of the share certificates that have been lost by the plaintiff. the relevant folio numbers and other details have been furnished at page 3, paragraph 3(d) of the plaint relating to the suit. the defendant will issue the duplicate shares provided there is no other person who has made a claim in respect of the relevant shares. in the event any other person has made a claim for the relevant shares or any of them, the defendant will furnish the particulars of such person to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to institute appropriate proceedings. in any event there is no other claimant for the shares claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant should make over the duplicate share certificates within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, subject to the plaintiff executing the appropriate indemnity in respect thereof. if there is no other impediment, the defendant may consider the plaintiffs request to transfer the relevant shares in the dematerialized account maintained by the plaintiff, upon due compliance with the regular procedure therefore. there will be no order as to costs. urgent certified photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

Judgment:
The Court :- The plaintiff claims to have lost the certificates relating to the shares held by the plaintiff in the defendant company. Following the plaintiffs complaint, the defendant wrote back on June 1, 2010 saying that since a large number of shares was involved, it was the defendants policy to advise any shareholder complaining of loss of share certificates to obtain an order from Court for issuance of duplicate certificates.

It is not necessary to go in to the propriety of such a requirement by a listed company of the defendants magnitude. The present application is for judgment on admission.

The underlying principle of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code may not allow any order to be made on the present application.

There are several reasons. The company cannot be interested in its own shares and the company is not the owner of the shares. However, it does not appear from the letter issued on June 1, 2010 by the defendant to the plaintiff that there are any other claimants for the same shares which the plaintiff has claimed in the present suit.

In view of such position and since the defendant has not been represented despite repeated service, GA No.2877 of 2010 is disposed of by directing the defendant to issue duplicate shares in lieu of the share certificates that have been lost by the plaintiff. The relevant folio numbers and other details have been furnished at page 3, paragraph 3(d) of the plaint relating to the suit.

The defendant will issue the duplicate shares provided there is no other person who has made a claim in respect of the relevant shares. In the event any other person has made a claim for the relevant shares or any of them, the defendant will furnish the particulars of such person to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to institute appropriate proceedings.

In any event there is no other claimant for the shares claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant should make over the duplicate share certificates within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, subject to the plaintiff executing the appropriate indemnity in respect thereof. If there is no other impediment, the defendant may consider the plaintiffs request to transfer the relevant shares in the dematerialized account maintained by the plaintiff, upon due compliance with the regular procedure therefore.

There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified Photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.