TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after referred to as respondent No. 1) in the Register of Members qua 1250 equity shares of Rs.2 each; the unpaid dividend was also admitted to be paid to him for the interregnum period. 2. Appellant before this Court is the Unit Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). 3. The case of the respondent is that he had bought 200 equity shares of the value of Rs. 10 each in a broker to broker transaction from M/s Dev Saigal & Co. vide invoice dated 20.05.1992. This document finds mention at page 67 of the paper book. These 200 shares were lost on the same date itself; not only these shares but his bag full of shares of other companies had also been lost; an FIR of the same date i.e. 20.05.1992 was registered in the concerned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....everal shares of the respondent had been lost on 20.05.1992; they were not 200 shares of the M//s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. alone; shares of other various companies amounting to almost more than 2500 shares had been lost and this is evident from the details given in these communications. It is also not case of the appellant that the numbers in each of these communications are different; record shows that earlier the distinctive numbers had been given as 11916764-813, 112466-515 which were renumbered in all subsequent communications as 4070816-865; 3465966-015; this was apparently and evidently because of inadvertence and a mistaken identification; there could be but no other explanation and this fact finding returned by the CLB based on sound....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.2000. Vehement submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant on this count being that this suit was withdrawn unconditionally and as such the present petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act was barred. 8 This is a misdirected submission. It is not the case of the appellant that the principle of res judicata was applicable; Order 23 Rule 3 would also not apply. A petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act is a summary procedure vesting the CLB with the jurisdiction to rectify the share register; it is not a suit. 9. Even after the withdrawal of the suit in 22.11.2000 respondent no. 1 did not allow the matter to rest; he continued with his vigorous efforts to get share register rectified. The petition under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o why if 100 shares of Kamal Doot had been transferred in favour of respondent No.1 on his executing an indemnity bond etc. why the remaining 100 shares which were on the same footing had not been transferred to which there appears to be no explanation by the Company. 11. The CLB in this context has rightly observed that an individual has been pitted against a big financial institution and in this factual scenario because of the arbitrary discretion exercised by the Company respondent No. 1 had little choice but to come knocking on the doors of the court. 12. It is also not the case of the appellant that they had taken any action to get these shares re-registered in their names; they have admittedly not taken a single step in this regard;....