https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113671 The Delhi HC held that non-joinder and Delhi Stock Exchange bye-law objections did not defeat the suit because no indispensable party was omitted and no independent relief was sought against the Exchange. It further found that the suit was not barred by section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and was validly instituted by the sole proprietor in his own capacity. On the merits, theft of the shares was not proved; delivery of the certificates with duly executed transfer deeds supported bona fide purchase by defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to declaration, consequential transfer and rendition of accounts, but not interest. The suit was decreed substantially with costs against some defendants. en-us Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113671 The Delhi HC held that non-joinder and Delhi Stock Exchange bye-law objections did not defeat the suit because no indispensable party was omitted and no independent relief was sought against the Exchange. It further found that the suit was not barred by section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and was validly instituted by the sole proprietor in his own capacity. On the merits, theft of the shares was not proved; delivery of the certificates with duly executed transfer deeds supported bona fide purchase by defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to declaration, consequential transfer and rendition of accounts, but not interest. The suit was decreed substantially with costs against some defendants. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113671