Globe Capital Market Ltd. vs Jai Prakash Associated Ltd. and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree of the Company Law Board (CLB) dated 25.05.2012 wherein the application filed by the appellant u/s 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') seeking a rectification of the members register was dismissed. The contention of the appellant is that he was a member of the National Stock Exchange (NSE); he had purchased 3500 shares of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL); he had received delivery of the share certificates along with the transfer deed duly signed by the transferor. On 17.05.2009, he had handed over one packet containing the aforenoted 3500 shares to Overnight Express Limited (courier service) for delivering the consignment at the Kanpur office of the company. This consignment was lost. Suit No. 239/1995 was filed in the Civil Court. This suit had sought a decree both against the company as also against the courier service. It was decreed against defendant No. 3 i.e. the courier company. This was vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2012. It was noted that defendant No. 3 (courier service) had not led any evidence. Suit was accordingly decreed against the courier company in the sum of 2,20,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. Suit against defendant No. 1 (the company) seeking a direction to issue duplicate share scripts was held not maintainable in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/S. Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and Others, .

Since this amount (which is the value of the share scripts) has already been paid to the appellant, a query was put to the appellant as to how his petition u/s 111A of the Companies Act would be maintainable. His submission being that this decree had been set aside by the first appellate Court and he had not received any money in terms of the aforenoted decree. The appellant had been directed to place the copies of the orders passed by the first appellate Court (dated 29.03.2012) on record; on which date the statement of the parties was also recorded. This order dated 29.03.2012 is extracted herein below:-

Counsel for the respondent No. 1 says that he has filed amended reply to the appeal and stated that respondent No. 1 has no objection if the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is granted. Since indication of settlement was there on the last occasion, therefore, it seems that amended reply and submissions made are in consonance with the kind of understanding.

Settlement of counsel for the respondent No. 1 is recorded separately and in view of the amended reply and statement made, the appeal against the respondent No. 1 and the decree passed against the appellant is set aside. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly. TCR along with the copy of this Court be sent to the ld. Trial Court. The appeal file be consigned to record room.

The statement of the counsel for the petitioner (respondent No. 1 in the appellate Court) reads herein below:-

Statement of Sh. S.S. Batra, counsel for respondent No. 1 at Bar.

I have filed no objection on behalf of respondent No. 1 company, duly signed by their authorized director stating that the respondent No. 1 company has no objection, if appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by the Hon''ble Court. Decree passed against the appellant be set aside.

Neither in the order and nor in the statement of the counsel is there anything to show that the decree was set aside for the reason that the petitioner was not pressing his claim against the courier service; in fact this order shows that there appears to have been an out of Court settlement between the petitioner and the courier company; vehement submission of the petitioner that this decree had been set aside entitling him now to rectification in the share register for the reason that he had not received any money qua the loss of these shares is not borne out from the record. Claim of the petitioner stands satisfied.

This appeal deserves to be rejected on this count as well. Impugned judgment thus calls for no interference. Appeal dismissed.