AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (6) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclared that master-share holders would be eligible for redemption of the shares at the rate of Rs. 49.70 per share and for that purpose shares along with filled up redemption forms should be lodged with any branch of UTI or M.N. Dastur & Co., Registrars, during the period from 1-11-1993 to 30-11-1993. 2. That the opposite party No. 1 also notified that investors acquiring master-shares from the market and intending redemption should lodge the certificates together with duly executed transfer deeds and redemp tion form on or before 25-10-1993. 3. It was further notified that those investors who acquired master- shares after 25-10-1993 shall not be eligible for redemption. 4. The opposite party No. 1 further declared that those who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not apply for 7,110 shares of SBI investing the said redemption amount and as the complainant/ petitioner would have been allotted 2,370 shares or more which had it been sold at a premium of Rs. 110 each it would fetch an earning of about Rs. 2.61 lakhs to the complainant/petitioner. This has been established by the complainant/petitioner in detailed calculation in Annexure 'A' to the petition. 8. Had the complainant/petitioner opted for the alternative course of the UTI to continue with the scheme she could have availed of dividend, bonus and rights on account of 14,300 master shares held by the complainant/petitioner and in that case, the complainant/petitioner would have fetched an earning of Rs. 1,53,977. Trusting the UTI and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....94 an advocate on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 appeared before this Commission and submitted that the complainant/petitioner be advised to contact the opposite party No. 3 at its local office at 56, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta for settlement of the dispute amicably by mutual discussion. None of the contentions of the complainant/petitioner was challenged by the opposite parties. The complainant/petitioner contended that any suggestion for settlement at this late stage was clearly a ploy to delay matters. It is pertinent to note that 20-5-1994 was fixed for final arguments and orders. 12. The complainant/petitioner submitted that the opposite party No. 1 has already admitted their fault for its inability to pay the redemption value f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod from 1-11-1993 to 30-11-1993. 2. That the opposite party No. 1 also notified that investors acquiring master-shares from the market and intending redemption should lodge the certificates together with duly executed transfer deeds and redemption form on or before 25-10-1993. 3. It was further notified that those investors who acquired master- shares after 25-10-1993 shall not be eligible for redemption. 4. The opposite party No. 1 further declared that those who would not opt for redemption would be eligible for dividend at the rate of 18 per cent bonus in the ratio of 1:3 and rights on the increased holding after bonus issue would be in the ratio of 1:1 at a premium of Rs. 5. 5. The complainant/petitioner opted for redempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e complainant/petitioner. This has been established by the complainant/petitioner in detailed calculation in Annexure 'A' to petition. 8. Had the complainant/petitioner opted for the alternative course of the UTI to continue with the scheme he could have availed of dividend, bonus and rights on account of 16,300 master shares held by the complainant/petitioner and in that case, the complainant/petitioner would have fetched an earning of Rs. 1,75,482. Trusting the UTI and calculating the benefit on redemption to be much larger than that on continuing with the scheme, the complainant/petitioner opted for redemption. The complainant/petitioner had not until the due date, namely 10-12-1993 received the redemption value of 16,300 master share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly by mutual discussion. None of the contentions of the complainant/petitioner were challenged by the opposite parties. The complainant/petitioner contended that any suggestion for settlement at this late stage was clearly a ploy to delay matters. It is pertinent to note that 20-5-1994 was fixed for final arguments and orders. 12. The complainant/petitioner submitted that the opposite party No. 1 has already admitted their fault for its inability to pay the redemption value for 16,300 master shares in time as per their promise as the opposite party No. 1 has paid compensation on that account and the complainant/ petitioner accepted the said amount under protest, the same being much below his expectation and nowhere near what would meet t....