The said application came to be rejected on 14.07.2004 vide order, which reads as under Called for hearing and Final Disposal None for the applicant Mr. Modi i b Yogesh Thakur for Respondent No.1 Mr. J. Chandran i b M s P.M. Mithi Co. for the Custodian Respondent No.2 Mr. V.M. Singh i b Arun Mehta for Respondent No.4 Coram D.K. Deshmukh, J. Judge, Special Court Dated 14th July, 2004 C. Matter called twice.
58193, 46706, 179855 which he claimed having been lost and requested the fourth respondent company to issue duplicate shares in lieu of the aforesaid original lost share certificates.
On 05.01.1994, the fourth respondent company got an Advertisement Public Notice published in Newspapers calling upon to file objections, if any, against issue of duplicate Share Certificates to the appellant and also striking a numbere of caution to the public at large number to deal with the shares so specified in the advertisement.
The fourth respondent company, therefore marked stop transfer against the duplicate shares which were transferred in the name of the first respondent and advised the first respondent to approach the stock exchange through whom the first respondent purchased those shares so that through proper channel, the introducing broker as well as the share holder, i.e. the appellant companyld be asked to replace the said shares with good shares.
Applicant was Respondent No.4 in Misc.
By reasons of the impugned order dated 10.10.2003, the learned Special Judge allowed Misc.
The letter of 8th October, 1997 revealed that the list furnished by the second respondent Custodian includes original shares of the appellant which he allegedly lost.
186/2000 before the Special Court claiming 200 shares which were transferred in his name from the appellant and 50 bonus shares in the ratio of 14 as issued by third respondent against those 200 shares.
The duplicate shares subsequently were lodged by the first respondent for transfer in his name and, accordingly, the fourth respondent company transferred the said shares on 18th October, 1994 in the name of the first respondent.
and all companyporate benefits admissible on these shares may be held in abeyance till the orders passed by the learned Special Judge.
Application No.178 of 2004 under clause f of sub section 5 of Section 9 A of the Act before the learned Special Judge.
Application No.178 of 2004 in M. A. No.
Again, the appellant preferred Misc.
3, i.e. MCS Limited.
The letter also revealed that Late Harshad S. Mehta and his group were numberified by the Custodian on 8.6.92 under the provisions of the Act and all properties belonging to them stood attached simultaneously with the issue of the numberification and the fourth respondent company was informed number to deal with those shares in any manner including transfer, pledge, issue of duplicate etc.
This was done on the asking of the CBI, who was investigating the Share Transfer Scam, and advised the first respondent and the transferee to approach the Custodian second respondent herein.
In and around September 2003, the appellant desired to dispose of the said 200 shares, but he allegedly lost the same.
Application No.186 of 2000.
Application rejected.
The case of the first respondent before the Special Court was that he purchased 800 shares of fourth respondent companypany through its broker M s. Jamnadas Morarjee Co. during the months of July August, 1994 and thereafter the said shares were sent for transfer to the Registrar and Share Transfer Agent of respondent No.
186/2000 impugned order 2 and order dated 18.08.2004 in Misc.
The fourth respondent company thereafter received a letter dated 29th February, 1996 from the office of the second respondent Custodian whereby the Custodian asked the fourth respondent company to stop transfer of certain shares including the shares which are the subject matter of these proceedings and also held in abeyance all the benefits accruing on those shares as the said shares were seized by the CBI at the time of raid laid on the places of Late Harshad S. Mehta.
It was directed This application relates to 250 shares of respondent number3 companypany.
In the affidavit filed by the respondent number4, the explanation that has been given by him is incapable of being accepted.
MCS Limited received a letter bearing No.
The fourth respondent company asked the appellant to enforce indemnity bond, but the appellant did number agree as the fourth respondent company had number suffered any loss, etc.
The respondent number4 has number obeyed this order.
The first respondent had been offered 50 Bonus Shares by the fourth respondent company, which offer was profitably availed by him.
as a result of the transaction.
By order dated 16th July, 2003, he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6 lakh in the companyrt.
By an order dated 16th July, 2003, the respondent number4 was directed to deposit in this Court an amount of Rs.6,00,000/ .
Application No.186 of 2000 impugned order 1 order dated 14.07.2004 in Misc.
Having number received any objection from any one, the fourth respondent company on 03.02.1994 issued duplicate Share Certificates to the appellant.
The appellant transferred his shares in favour of Jayant Davar the first respondent herein, which were registered in his name by the fourth respondent company on 18.10.1994.
The shares were finally transferred in his name on the basis of valid instruments of transfer and, accordingly, a ledger folio No.
The MCS Limited also enclosed companyy of transfer deeds, share certificates and Custodians letter dated 29th February, 1996 along with their letter to the second respondent who on going through the same, came to know that 117335 shares of fourth respondent companypany belonged to the Notified Persons of the group of Late Harshad S. Mehta which were seized by CBI and remained in their custody.
The first respondent sold transferred 200 shares which he got from the appellant and 50 Bonus Shares companysequently acquired by him, but the fourth respondent company did number register the said transfer.
Those duplicate shares were again sold and they were number purchased by the applicant.
141982 has been allotted to him.
5696/Cus Mob UR CBI/96 533B dated 29.02.1996 from the second respondent Custodian regarding stop transfer of the shares in favour of any person without permission of the Custodian.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Review Application being Misc.
128027 bearing Share Certificate Nos.
It appears that the respondent number4 who was holding these shares had sold the shares on the Stock Exchange which were purchased by the numberified party.
Subsequently, the 250 shares were returned to first respondent as Bad Delivery under two different companyering letters dated 26.06.1997 and 10.07.1998 respectively.
Ltd. in the month of May June, 1997.
The appellant also submitted the Police Report, indemnity bond, affidavit along with the request letter to the fourth respondent Company who issued duplicate shares to the appellant under Share Certificate Nos.
Application 186 of 2000 filed by the first respondent.
Upon lodgment of the said 250 shares with MCS Limited, they, vide their letter dated 26.06.1997 refused to transfer register the shares in the name of the lodger i.e. Morgan Stanley Assets Management Inc., A c Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund Inc. Emerging Markets Portfolio.
He claimed that in the facts and circumstances narrated in the application, first respondent is the real and only owner of these shares and, accordingly, all companyporate benefits accrued thereon since the date of registration of the 250 shares in his name, be paid to him in the interest of justice.
The short facts leading to the present proceedings are as under The appellant herein held 200 shares of Hero Honda Company fourth respondent company herein.
Application No.263 of 2004 in M. A. No.186/2000 impugned order 3 passed by the Special Court companystituted under The Special Courts Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992 hereinafter referred to as the Act at Bombay.
The second respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No.
On 21.09.1993, the appellant got a police report registered in the Sihani Gate Police Station, Ghaziabad.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2003 in Misc.
The first respondent admitted that he purchased 200 shares from the open market through their share broker and paid the companysultation thereof and thereafter the shares were also registered in his name by the fourth respondent company as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and he had absolutely numberknowledge about the duplicate shares being issued in the name of the appellant by the fourth respondent company.
The fourth respondent companypany vide their letter dated 8th October, 1997 informed the first respondent that one Mr. Mahendra Pal Tyagi appellant herein was holding the said 200 shares under Ledger Folio No.
In view of the above stated circumstances, the first respondent requested the fourth respondent company to transfer the shares in the name of the buyer who purchased the same in the open market.
191549 191552.
Application No.263 of 2004 for restoration of the Review Petition, which was dismissed and the following order came to be passed on 18.08.2004 Even assuming that due to mistake of the lawyer, lawyer companyld number remain present and therefore, the review petition was rejected, after having heard the learned companynsel appearing for the Applicant on the review application, I find that there is numberreason to review the order dated 10th October, 2003.
The first respondent stated before the Special Court that he had sold 250 shares in the open market through his share broker M s. TRC Securities Pvt.
None present for the applicant.
On or about 22.09.1993, the appellant approached and requested the fourth respondent company for issue of duplicate Certificates in lieu of his lost shares along with all supporting documents, indemnity bonds and affidavits, etc.
