Calcutta High Court
Surya Kant Dalmia vs M/S. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. ... on 9 June, 2010
Author: Maharaj Sinha
Bench: Maharaj Sinha
Order Sheet
CS No. 64 of 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
-------
SURYA KANT DALMIA Versus M/S. TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LIMITED BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MAHARAJ SINHA Date: 9 June 2010.
Appearance:
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate Although after the institution of the suit way back in the year 1991, to be precise on 30 January 1991, the Writ of Summons was duly served upon the defendant, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited, the defendant did not even enter appearance and as such did not contest the suit by filing its written statement. As such, till date, the above suit has remained uncontested and the department concerned has issued certificates to the above effect. The certificates issued by the department concerned are kept on record duly countersigned.
Since the suit has not been contested, the plaintiff, in my opinion, is entitled to a decree as claimed in the suit. However, the plaintiff's witness has given evidence in Court today proving 2 all the documents on which the case of the plaintiff is based. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of documents which have been proved by the plaintiff's witness today in court are given below:
1. Copy of Purchase Bill, Contact Note dated 24.12.1990 & List of Distinctive Numbers issued by Broker G.M.Pyne;
2. Copy of Purchase Bill, Contact Note dated 24.12.1990 & List of Distinctive Numbers issued by Broker Shyam Sundar Dlmia;
3. Copy of covering letter dated 14.01.1991 for 2345 equity shares along with indemnity and Surities sent to the defendant by the plaintiff;
4. Copy of Postal Receipt dated 18.01.1991 issued by Post Office to the plaintiff;
5. Copy of covering letter dated 25.01.1991 for 390 equity shares along with indemnity and Surities sent to the defendant by the plaintiff;
6. Copy of Consignment Note Nos. 1541795 & 1541796 both dated 25.01.1991 issued by M/s. Skypak Couriers Ltd. to the plaintiff;
7. Copy of letter dated 28.01.1991 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff;3
8. Copy of letter dated 24.01.1991 sent by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited to the plaintiff;
9. Copy of G.D.E. No. 1604 received on 13.03.2008 by Officer-in-Charge, Bhowanipore Police Station;
10. Copy of Certificate dated 20.03.2006 issued by the learned Registrar, Original Side, High Court at Calcutta along with two relevant documents.
The suit was instituted by the plaintiff essentially claiming mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant. Since the claims of the plaintiff are mentioned in claims (a), (b) and
(c) of the plaint, the particulars of claims need not be mentioned once again.
The plaintiff, it appears, got certain shares way back in the year 1990, to be precise on 24 December 1990, as mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint but the defendant failed to effect the registration of transfer of the said shares in favour of the plaintiff and essentially such failure on the part of the defendant in fact gave rise to the cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to institute the suit. After considering the case made out in the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff's witness given today in court, I am fully satisfied that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case 4 as made out in the plaint and as such the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed.
Thus there will be a decree in terms of claims (a), (b) and
(c) of the plaint. There will also be a decree for cost assessed at Rs. 50,000/- and the plaintiff is entitled to this cost over and above the court fees that the plaintiff had to pay for the purpose of institution of the suit.
Let the decree be drawn up expeditiously.
(MAHARAJ SINHA, J.) S. Kumar A.R.(C.R.)