Appellate court overturns decision due to lack of evidence in share dispute case.

The appellate authority allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Forum's order, as it was found that the complainant was not allotted the shares she claimed. Documents demonstrated the refund and transfer of shares to another individual, refuting the complainant's assertions. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's claim of share allotment, leading to a ruling in favor of the appellant with no costs imposed.

---

---

Issues:
Complaint seeking delivery of equity share certificates and compensation - Allegation of non-receipt of share certificates despite payment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Complaint and Counter Arguments:
The first respondent filed a complaint seeking delivery of equity share certificates and compensation. The opposite parties, Managing Director of ITC Agro Tech. Ltd. and Sathguru Management Consultants (P.) Ltd., contended that the complainant was not a successful allottee of the shares and the application money was refunded to her. They claimed that the complainant did not enclose the allotment letter and that the dividend warrant sent to her was a mistake, intended for another individual.

2. Evidence Presented:
The complainant submitted various exhibits, including a letter from the second opposite party mentioning the delivery of share certificates pending clarification, a dividend warrant, and a registered notice demanding the share certificates. The District Forum, after considering the evidence, concluded that the complainant was allotted shares but did not receive the share certificates, directing the opposite parties to provide the certificates and compensation.

3. Appeal and Decision:
In the appeal, the appellant argued that the shares mentioned in the complaint were never allotted to the complainant but to another individual. They presented documents showing the refund of the application money and the transfer of shares to a different person. The appellate authority found that no shares were allotted to the complainant, the refund was issued and encashed, and the shares belonged to someone else. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the District Forum's order with no costs imposed.

4. Conclusion:
The judgment clarified that the complainant was not allotted the shares she claimed, as evidenced by documents showing the refund and transfer of shares to a different individual. The appellate authority ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's claim of share allotment.

---