VIJAY GANDOTRA vs APPLE INDUSTRIES LTD.

SMT . Vijay Gandotra, the complainant-appellant herein complained against the delay in the transfer of shares and also regarding the change of name in register of share holders against the respondent No. 1-Apple Industries Ltd.. and others. She approached the State Commission for the redressal of her grievance seeking a direction for the issue of 950 share certificates and benefits of rights issue and preferential offers made by the respondent together with a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. The complaint came up for hearing before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow on 28.6.93 but as the opposite party did not put in appearance inspite of notice it was proceeded ex-parte. The State Commission noted a statement made before them on 28.6.93 that 950 shares have been returned to her along with Rs. 1500/-. The State Commission, therefore, considered the limited question of compensation on account of delay and harassment. After considering the matter ex-parte, the State Commission decided that since 950 shares have already been returned to her along with a sum of R >. 1500/-, no further relief is justified on merits. It is against this decision of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh that the appellant has come before us.

THE Appellant had sent 950 share certificates which she had bought from market to respondent No. 1, for transfer and record of change of name in the register of share holders on 27.9.9a. It is stated in the appeal that the Company issued rights and preferential shares in the year 1991 in the ratio of 1:1 (fully convertible debentures of Rs. 23 per FCD) and further a right issue was made in April, 1993 which the appellant could not and did not get as the transferred shares were sent to her along with a letter dated 16.2.93. This letter also stated that the shares were recorded in her name in the share transfer register on 30.9.92. It is apparent that the change of ownership of the shares was recorded in the register of share holders by the respondent No. 1 almost 2 years after she had sent them for this purpose. It may be mentioned that the District Forum, Lucknow had awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards compensation and 18% interest on the dividend, if any, to the complainant in their decision in Complaint No. 788 of 1992 which had been paid by the respondent in accordance with the order. The respondent has denied that the shares had been sent to them on 27.7.90 and therefore have also denied that the appellant is entitled to rights offer as alleged. Further they have stated that after 16.2.93 when the respondent sent 950 shares, and Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest of Rs. 319/- on the dividend as well as Rs. 1,500/- for reimbursement of expenses incurred by the appellant, they also sent to the appellant through Courier four forms each of 200 debentures and one form of 50 debentures to enable the appellant to apply under the rights issue. It was also left to the appellant to give the said forms to anybody else if she so desired.

WE have gone through the record of this case and have also perused the decision of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, After hearing the Counsel for the appellant and respondents we find no merit in this appeal as we feel that the appellant has been fully compensated in the circumstances of this case. This is particularly so as the respondents have repeatedly stated in their affidavit that they did not receive the shares on 27.9.90 as alleged by the complainant and the complainant has not been able to prove this allegation to the satisfaction of the District Forum and the State Commission. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.