TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ORDER Justice A.K. Bhattacharji, President - This appeal is against an order of the Calcutta District Forum dismissing a complaint demanding compen- sation against the opposite parties-respondents. The appellant-complain-ants case before the district forum was as follows. 2. The appellant is a registered shareholder of the Reliance Industries Ltd. (respondent No. 1) in respect of 400 shares whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the shares the respondent No. 2 sent 5 share certificates comprising 500 shares of the said company duly signed by the same transferors, namely, Aswin Shan- tilal Mehta and Deepika Aswin Mehta as security for the said amounts. But the said shares were also tainted shares and amounted to bad delivery. The shares were sold and delivered through respondent No. 3, namely, Vinod Baid & Co. The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the complaint was dismissed by the forum. 5. The point for determination is if the case been rightly dismissed by the Forum. DECISION 6. The petitioner's case is that he purchased 400 shares of opposite Party No. 1 through the opposite Party No. 2 and paid the said opposite party the value of the shares, but the shares proved to be a bad debt as the registration of the same was refused by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no conclusive proof that the complainant paid the cheque for the purchase of the disputed 400 shares. The transferors of the shares were Aswin Shantilal Mehta and Deepika Aswin Mehta. They were ordered to be made parties to the proceedings by the District Forum, but the same was not done. 8. Evidently the opposite Party No. 2 had no title to the disputed shares. If at all, he was a broker. The sa....