Case: Dhiraj Ramji Galia Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.. Company Law Board
| Judges | Kanthi Narahari, Judicial Member |
| Issue | Company Law |
| Citation | [2010] 158 CompCas 33 (CLB) |
| Judgement Date | May 18, 2010 |
| Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
Kanthi Narahari, Judicial Member
-
The present petition is filed by invoking the provisions of Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, praying this Bench to grant reliefs as prayed in paragraph 9 of the petition. Shri Jain, learned practising company secretary appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased 100 shares of Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd., on June 8, 1995 at Rs. 203.90 per share, through his broker, Uday S. Kotak, respondent No. 3 herein, who had issued Bill No. N/EQ/1995023/00000 dated June 16, 1995, for Rs. 20,412 during the settlement periods June 7, 1995 to June 13, 1995. The petitioner had made full payment of the bill issued by respondent No. 3. The petitioner received the duly executed transfer deed along with the share certificate bearing Certificate No. 180130, registered ledger folio No. kmf 801680 (Distinctive Nos. from 0017977901 to 0017978000) for 100 shares. Thereafter he lodged the transfer deed along with the share certificate with respondent No. 2 for registration of transfer of the said 100 equity shares which were duly received by the Andheri office of respondent No. 2 on July 5, 1995, vide Inward No. 161017.
-
The petitioner received a letter bearing S. R. No. 663 dated July 27,1995, from respondent No. 2, mentioning therein that the transferor's (respondent No. 4) signature on the transfer deed differs from the signature recorded with the company, i.e., respondent No. 1. By the said letter the petitioner was advised to re-submit the transfer deed/fresh transfer deed. Immediately thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No. 3 for rectification of the bad delivery received through him. The petitioner also approached respondent No. 2, but the matter dragged on for years without any positive outcome. At last the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 with a request to provide him the address of respondent No. 4 so that he could directly communicate with him and make efforts to get fresh transfer deed signed by the transferor, i.e., respondent No. 4. The said letter was duly received by the fort office of respondent No. 2. The petitioner thereafter received the letter dated March 8, 2008, from respondent No. 2 in response to his request for providing transferor's address. Respondent No. 2 furnished the address of the transferor as under:
Prashanth Kasargod Umesh,
Address: H. No. 2-53A Kashyap,
Near Navagiri Kalyan Mantap,
Hasabettu Post, Manglore-574 176.
-
The petitioner thereafter wrote a letter to respondent No. 4 on April 2, 2008, requesting him to provide the new transfer deed duly attested by his bank to him. The petitioner also sent a copy of a letter dated March 8, 2008, received from respondent No. 2 along with the copy of the share certificate and the transfer deed. The petitioner also requested respondent No. 4 to contact him on his mobile/landline No. and/or through letter at the address of the petitioner for any information or clarification. The petitioner also contacted respondent No. 4 several times but till date there...
To continue reading
Request your trial