Court dismisses application on ownership & sale of shares in liquidation, emphasizing finality of previous judgments

The court dismissed the application regarding ownership and sale of shares in a company in liquidation, citing previous judgments conclusively determining ownership. The judge criticized the applicant for attempting to re-litigate settled matters and prolong legal proceedings, emphasizing the need to discourage such practices. The application was deemed meritless and dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues:
Ownership of shares in a company in liquidation, permission to sell shares, suppression of material facts, abuse of legal process, res judicata principle.

Ownership of Shares:
The applicant claimed ownership of preference shares of a company in liquidation and sought court permission to sell them. The respondent argued that the applicant was aware of previous winding-up proceedings and participated in them, making him bound by the court's decisions. Various judgments confirmed the ownership of shares, and the register of shares produced by the respondent was deemed unreliable by the court. The respondent alleged that the applicant tried to overreach the court and was guilty of forgery.

Permission to Sell Shares:
The applicant requested court permission to sell his shares, stating that interested buyers approached him. He emphasized that the sale would not hinder the winding-up process. The respondent contended that the applicant did not own any shares in the company and accused him of trying to mislead the court.

Suppression of Material Facts:
The respondent claimed that the applicant suppressed material facts and approached the court with unclean hands, urging the dismissal of the application with costs.

Abuse of Legal Process and Res Judicata:
The respondent argued that the application was an abuse of the legal process as the matter had been conclusively decided up to the Supreme Court and could not be reopened. The principle of res judicata was invoked to prevent the reexamination of issues already settled by previous court decisions.

Court Decision:
The judge dismissed the application, emphasizing that the ownership of shares had been conclusively determined in previous judgments and could not be reopened. The judge criticized the tendency of some litigants to prolong legal proceedings despite clear court decisions, stating that such practices must be discouraged. The application was deemed meritless and dismissed with costs.

---