TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (8) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) against the respondent mentioned above. The petition states as under: 1. That the claimant applied for the allotment of 1,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each for cash at a premium of Rs. 4 and 20 (Twenty number) 13.50 per cent secured redeemable convertible debentures of Rs. 100 each of the defendant No. 1 vide application serial No. 433018 dated 15-4-1986 along with a sum of Rs. 9,000 only through cheque bearing No. 277703 dated 15-4-1986, drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town. Ludhiana. The claimant had deposited the said application form along with the application money with the collecting agent Allahabad Bank, Clock Tower, Ludhiana (Respondent No. 2) on 15-4-1986. 2. That the respondent No. 2 sent the cheque of the above amount o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e public connected with the applications of the said shares with the said bank, the claimant came to know that some mischievous person or the employees of the respondent No. 2 bank have played fraud by misplacing the applications of the investors including that of the claimant and applied for the shares by enclosing the cheques submitted by the investors as also the claimant, and the shares have been allotted to the persons but neither the bank seems to help the claimant and other investors in bringing to book the culprit who has played the fraud upon the investors. 6. That afterwards a CBI enquiry was referred to investigate tin: huge fraud played by the culprits, and the claimant went on writing to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 asking th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of the debenture has already become due for redemption as on 30-6-1994 in one lot as against three annual installments as per the special resolution passed at the adjourned meeting of debenture holders of respondent No. 2 held on 15-6-1994. The claimant was also directed to send the indemnities in respect of all the debentures, shares and redemption amount, enabling the respondents to send the required documents. 10. That the claimant sent an indemnity bond for Rs. 10 each in three parts, duly executed and attested to the respondent No. 1 on 14-12-1994, through Registered Post, but in spite of numerous reminders, the respondent No. 1 have failed to send the duplicate certificates and redemption amount to the claimant, till date. 11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1995). Notices were issued to all the parties concerned. Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 filed their replies. Rejoinders were also filed by the applicant with copies to the respondents. The following issues were framed on 8-11-1995 : 1.Whether the application is not maintainable in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das and the Full Bench of this Commission in D.G. (I&R) v. Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Ltd. and in the light of the other objections taken by the respondents in its reply as preliminary objection. 2.Whether the respondents are or have been indulging in unfair/ restrictive trade practices as indicated in the compensation applica- tion. 3.Wh....