GLAXO INDIA LIMITED vs KANA BOSE

THIS is an appeal against order of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I dated 30.8.1996 directing opposite party-1 to issue duplicate certificate in respect of 31 shares in favour of complainant within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.

THE facts leading to the case lie in a short compass. The complainant purchased 31 Equity Shares of opposite party-1 from market and sent the same to it on 13.6.1994 for transfer. Opposite party-1 acknowledged the receipt of the same together with Transfer Deed and by its letter dated 17.5.1995 informed the complainant about the despatch of transferred shared by Registered Post to the complainant on 20.7.1994. The complainant having not received the share certificates sent Indemnity Bond and affidavit to opposite party-1 on their requisition on 30.5.1995 for issue of duplicate certificates.

Opposite party-1 by a letter dated 20.12.1995 informed the complainant that opposite party-2 lodged 25 shares to the Company on 30.5.1995 unto the name of S. Krishnan of 579/ 1, Alagiri Samy Road, 1st Floor, Madras. So, opposite party-1 returned the transferred documents and expressed regret to the complainant that her prayer for duplicate share certificates cannot be allowed in the absence of any prohibitory order.

THE complainant claims that she has received dividend in respect of above mentioned 31 shares for the months of November/ December, 1994 on 25.3.1995. But she complained of non-receipt of original shares thus transferred. THE opposite party having not obliged the complainant by issuing duplicate share certificates, the latter has approached the Forum. It appears that notice was served upon the opposite party but none of the opposite parties chose to appear and contest the case. The Forum concluded that opposite party-1 duly transferred the said 31 shares in the name of the complainant and despatched the same through Bombay G.P.O. on 2.8.1994 vide Registration No. 249. But the complainant did not receive the same. It is alleged that the said share certificates were intercepted by someone while in transit. Thereafter opposite party-2 managed to obtain 25 shares from a broker without knowledge of the fact that the shares were stolen. It is not disputed that the shares were purchased by the complainant and those were sent to opposite party-1 for transfer. Actually, the share certificates were transferred in the name of the complainant and they were despatched to her address by Registered Post. Those shares were lost on the way and they reached the hand of third party. It is not disputed that the complainant has received dividend for two months viz. November/ December, 1994 in respect of those shares.

DURING hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant questions the jurisdiction of the Forum to decide the case on the ground that the Registered Office of the opposite party-1 is not situated within the jurisdiction of the Forum but it is situated at Bombay. On being questioned as to whether he had raised the question of jurisdiction before the Forum, he submits that since the matter was determined ex parte he had no opportunity to urge this point. It appears from the body of judgment that summons were served upon the OPs but they did not appear and contest the claim nor did they send any written statement challenging the jurisdiction of the Forum to try the case. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that opposite party- 1 has Branch Office in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Forum. This position is not disputed. This being the position it is futile to urge that the Forum lacked jurisdiction to determine the case. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to certain other decisions which we think has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Here the share certificates were transferred in the name of the complainant in the books of opposite party-1. They were despatched by Registered Post. But the Shares did not reach the hands of the complainant. In the circumstances, it is felt that the Forum was perfectly justified in directing opposite party-1 to issue duplicate share certificates in the name of the complainant. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the shares were lost in transit while in the custody of the Postal Authorities arid as such the Postal Authority is a necessary party. Here in this case the complainant has not claimed compensation nor did the Forum allow any compensation to the complainant. The Forum has simply directed the opposite party-1 to issue duplicate share certificates. Therefore, having considered the matter in proper perspective we find that the case has been properly decided and no interference is called for. The Appeal fails and is dismissed but without cost. Appeal dismissed.