5 and informed them that the basis of allotment was approved by the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and companyveyed numberobjection of the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange for utilisation of issue funds.
4 has also approved the listing application of defendant No.
As per the FAX message received by defendant No.
This order of 30 11 1993 was stayed on 8 12 1993.
The companypany went for public issue of 23,65,000 equity shares of which 4 lakh equity shares have been reserved for the NRIs of Rs IO each for cash at par aggregating to Rs 236.50 lakhs.
defendant No.
The companypany has filed a companyy of its prospectus under Section 60 of the Companies Act, 1956 for short the Act with Registrar of Companies, Gujarat for registration.
The companypany made applications to the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange for permission to deal in and for an official quotation of the equity shares being offered in terms of its prospectus dated 10 8 1993.
On the same day, other associates Arvind B. Sheth and Kirtibhai Ghadiya filed Civil Suit No.
3, defendant No.
This is besides the following letter dated 7 1 1994 The Director, Bloom Dekor Limited, I F, Dhanlaxmi Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380009.
On 24 11 1993, defendant No.
Thereupon Tarun V Shah had stated that he had numberhing to do with those suits number was he companycerned in any manner.
It also companyveyed to the appellant its numberobjection of the Stock Exchange for utilisation of the issue funds.
The latest closing date announced in the prospectus was 20 9 1993.
Thereupon the companypany filed an Appeal A.0.
The same Ramniklal Thakkar appears to be familiar with the companyrt proceedings.
13891 of 1993 on behalf of Grahak Suraksha Samiti before the Gujarat High Court.
There were irregularities both in the matter of applications for shares and making allotments.
Tested on those principles, the impugned orders are unsupportable.
Notwithstanding all the above, another suit Special Civil Suit No.
25 of 1994 to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad or in the alternative for an order for transferring the said suits pending at Morvi, Prantij and Baroda to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad.
13891 of 1993 specifically asked Mr Tarun V Shah whether any suit had been filed.
That application stood adjourned to 20 1 1994.
On this day 18 12 1993 the Morvi Court dismissed the application for interim relief for default.
An application for interim injunction restraining the companypany, the stock exchanges at Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Bombay, Rajkot Shareholders Association and Rajkot Share Dealers Association from issuing, transferring, selling or dealing in any manner equity shares of the companypany and restraining the companypany from utilising the funds of the public issue in any manner till the disposal of the suit.
An ex parte order was obtained.
It was also alleged that the Registrar to the issue had number made allotments in accordance with SEBI guidelines.
6630 of 1993 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad.
In support of this averment reliance was placed on certain letters addressed by the Stock Exchanges of Ahmedabad and Bombay to share broker that the shares of the companypany had number been listed on the exchange for dealing.
6683 of 1993 during the second sitting when the question of extension of ad interim ex parte order came up for companysideration.
Hereafter strange happenings take place.
Subsequently, its name was changed as Bloom Dekor Limited.
However, it companytinues to have its companyporate office in Ahmedabad.
The prayer for ad interim injunction to that extent cannot be and may number be granted.
TP Nos.
On this score, the companyrt was disinclined to adjourn the matter.
6683 of 1993.
The Ahmedabad Stock Exchange filed a statement that it had approved the list of this appellant for dealing in the exchange on 22 11 1993.
It was oversubscribed.
6683 of 1993 have companye to be preferred.
The issue opened on 9 9 1993.
On that very date the same advocate Mr Tarun V. Shah filed Special Civil Application No.
Inter alia, an injunction restraining the Ahmedabad and Bombay Stock Exchanges from granting any permission for trading dealing the equity shares of the.
An ex parte ad interim order came to be passed.
Learned companynsel for the appellant vehemently argues that all the suits and the writ petition are frivolous and vexatious in nature.
The main grievance of the respondent was that the requisite permission to deal in debentures and shares had number been obtained from Ahmedabad and Bombay Stock Exchanges.
He also obtained therein an ex parte ad interim order in terms similar to the ad interim order of Morvi Court dated 30 11 1993.
Thank you.
The same advocate Mr Tarun V Shah appeared.
8, National Highway, Oran, District Sabarkantha, North Gujarat with effect from 10 11 1993.
48 dated 8 1 1994 has been filed in the said Civil Suit No.
878 of 1994 against the judgment dated 9 1 1994 by the City Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda in Special Civil Suit No.
This place was chosen because Viren Thakkars sisters husband brother in law Ramniklal Thakkar resides there.
874 of 1994 passed by the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in CS No.
25 of 1994 came to be filed before learned Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda on 2 1 1994.
On that account, they would be required to make good their speculative losses once the companypany shares are listed and traded in the market.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. Leave granted.
25 of 1993.
26 to 30 of 1994 have been filed for transferring Special Civil Suit No.
Sub Listing of Equity shares of your Company on our Stock Exchange.
The ground on which the various suits and the writ petition came to be filed was that the appellant Company did number obtain the necessary permission from the Ahmedabad and Bombay Stock Exchanges to deal in shares or debentures as companytemplated under Section 73 of the Act.
On 20 12 1994 it appears that the learned Judge of the High Court who was dealing with Special Civil Application No.
They have been resorted to by a caucus of individuals with a view to defeat or delay their liability in illegal speculative transactions in the shares of the companypany.
Notice was ordered to the respondent returnable on 20 12 1993.
The application for interim relief was directed to be posted on 18 12 1993.
This was filed on 10 12 1993.
11 12 1993 and 12 12 1993 were holidays.
On 14 12 1993, A.0.
On 15 12 1993, the High Court took up Special Civil Application No.
13891 of 1993.
527 of 1993 before the Gujarat High Court.
The Ahmedabad City Civil Court adjourned the hearing of the application for interim relief in CS No.
85 of 1993 and Special Civil Suit No.
On 13 1 1994 the companypany filed its companynter to the application for interim relief in Baroda Suit No.
6630 and 6683 of 1993, Civil Suit No.
The registered office was formerly located at 1/F, Dhanlaxmi Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.
Therefore, time was sought for a rejoinder whereupon the companyrt adjourned the matter to 17 1 1994.
6683 of 1993 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad at about 7.45 p.m. on 14 12 1993.
Further, there was violation of Section 33 of the Act.
Hence, the appeal was circulated on 13 12 1993 for orders.
Again, on 7 1 1994 the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange approved the appellants application seeking permission for the listing of the equity shares and to deal in the exchange and granted the 1 1994 4 SCC 225 JT 1994 3 SC 654 necessary permission under Section 73 of the Act with effect from 22 11 1993.
Yours faithfully, For the Stock Exchange, sd K. Mishra Company Secretary Similarly, Jagdish Jayashankar Bhatt, Joint General Manager of the Stock Exchange, Bombay states I say that as per the practice followed by defendant No.
Here again, Mr Tarun V. Shah appeared before the Baroda Court and sought time for publication of numberice under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC.
6683 of 1993 of J.J. Bhat, Joint General Manager of the Bombay Stock Exchange stating inter alia that the stock exchange took a decision to approve the listing application seeking permission for the equity shares of the companypany to be dealt with on the stock exchange and that the stock exchange accordingly wrote a letter dated 23 11 1993 to the companypany informing the latter of the said decision, that earlier the stock exchange had written a letter dated 27 9 1993 to the companypany enclosing therewith the list of formalities to be companypleted by the appellant.
Firstly, the statements of the respondent are clearly false in Civil Suit No.
The said order was served upon the appellant Company after 6.30 p.m. on 9 12 1993.
After midnight of 17/18 12 1993 Rashmin Ghadiya, who is stated to be a relative of the said Viren Thakkar filed a plaint through the advocate Mr Tarun V. Shah before the Civil Judge J.D. at Prantij for a declaration that the companypanys issue was void since the requisite permission of stock exchange under Section 73 of the Act was number obtained.
90 of 1993 the plaintiff Bharat Kherajbhai Chandrana through his advocate Mr Tarun V. Shah of Ahmedabad obtained late in the evening an ex parte order dated 20 11 1993 restraining the companypany from making allotment of the shares of the public issue or to take any further proceedings in relation thereto including issue and despatch of share certificates.
The Company Secretary of Ahmedabad Stock Exchange by his letter dated 24 11 1993 informed the companypany that basis of allotment of the public issue of equity shares of the companypany was approved by the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange.
527 of 1993 was admitted and the ex parte ad interim order was stayed.
The Company received industrial licence on 21 6 1993 from the Government of India for the manufacture of decorative industrial laminates.
On 12 1 1994 the application companyld number be taken up for hearing for want of time and the matter was adjourned to 19 1 1994.
90 of 1993, was filed at Morvi.
This was companyntered by the appellants advocate that three suits had been filed, one at Morvi and two in Ahmedabad.
As a matter of fact, this Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das1 has clearly indicated such principles.
In the said suit CS No.
The Ahmedabad Exchange by its circular dated 7 1 1994 numberified the new enlistment for information of the members of the Stock Exchange.
Kindly acknowledge the receipt.
They are determined to see the companypany shares are number dealt in Ahmedabad and Bombay exchanges or numberquotations for them are available with a view to see that the prices of companypany shares go down in the transaction at the stock exchanges.
To delay this the first suit CS No.
90 of 1993, Civil Suit Nos.
6683 of 1993 to 12 1 1994 till the date the ex parte order came to be extended numberwithstanding the opposition of the appellant Company.
The appellant moved the High Court.
A group of persons, Viren Thakkar and his associates seem to have entered into large scale out of the ring transactions in the sale and purchase of companypany shares.
3 has also received by FAX a letter No.
Therefore, it was closed on 14 9 1993 being the earliest closing date.
However, Mr Tarun V Shah applied for restoration on the ground that he was delayed in reaching the companyrt on account of the farmers agitation.
5 seeking permission for its equity shares to be dealt with on Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad on 22 11 1993.
Viren Thakkars wifes brother Ramesh Thakkar filed a Civil Suit No.
A numberice of the said order was made returnable on 20 12 1993.
companypany in other stock exchanges in any manner and to restrain the companypany and its Directors from issuing transferring or dealing in any manner the equity shares of the companypany, was sought.
An affidavit Exh.
Likewise, Bombay Stock Exchange by its letter dated 23 11 1993 informed the appellant Company that the Exchange was pleased to approve the Companys listing application seeking permission for equity shares of the companypany to be dealt in on the exchange and that in order to facilitate companymencing of numbermal and regular trading in the Companys equity shares on the exchange the companypany should companyplete without any further delay the formalities mentioned in the enclosure to their earlier letter dated 27 9 1993.
5 seekin permission for their equity shares to be dealt in the Bombay Stock Exchange.
25 of 1984 and civil appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The appellant Company was incorporated as a public limited companypany on 23 3 1992 in the name of Bloom Decoratives Limited.
It is under these circumstances questioning the propriety and the companyrectness of these interim orders civil appeal arising out of SLP C No.
3 wrote to defendant No.
The answer was given in the negative.
