Raj Rattan vs The Custodian on 14 February, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Raj Rattan vs The Custodian on 14 February, 2020

Bench: A.K. Menon

                                                                                      14-SPMA-2-20.doc


Dixit

                                 IN THE SPECIAL COURT AT BOMBAY
                           Constituted under the Special Court [Trial of Offences
                               Relating to Transactions in Securities] Act, 1992


                            MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2020
        Raj Rattan                                                              ....Applicant
             V/s.
        The Custodian, Mumbai and Ors.                                          ....Respondents


        Ms. Jindagi Shah for the Applicant.

        Mr. Gandhar Raikar, with Ms. Shilpa Bhate, i/by Leena Adhvaryu Associates,
        for Respondent No.1-Custodian.


                                                        CORAM : A.K. MENON, J.

JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2020.

P.C. :

1. This is an application seeking certification in respect of 50 shares of Reliance Industries Limited. The applicant, an individual, has contended that these shares were purchased from respondent no.4-one Swastik Investment, Haryana and that payment of Rs.19,491/- for the same was paid in cash against Receipt No.326. The shares were sent to the company for transfer;

however, since these were purchased from a notified party, the company has declined to transfer the same and had informed the applicant that the Special Court has fixed a date for considering these applications which has since long expired.

1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:37:36 :::

14-SPMA-2-20.doc

2. It appears that the applicant claims to be educated in vernacular language and was engaged in selling utensils in a small town of Haryana. He was unaware of the factual background and the bar of transfer. He has, therefore, approached the court belatedly. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Varghese K. Joseph Vs. The Custodian & Ors.1. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, requests that the aforesaid facts may be considered.

3. A certification report dated 4 th January 2020 has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1-the Custodian, in which the Custodian has confirmed verification of the original share certificate and the bill-cum-receipt issued by the broker. Mr. Raikar confirms receipt of the original document, save and except proof of delivery in Stock Exchange. In view of the fact that the original share certificate and bill-cum-receipt clearly mentioning particulars of the shares, the Custodian has supported this application. The document at Exhibit-C to the plaint is the true copy of the Bill-cum-Delivery Note No.0326 dated 23rd April 1992, under which the aforesaid respondent no.4- Swastik Investment had delivered shares to the applicant against payment of a sum of Rs.19,491/-, receipt of which is acknowledged in the original bill itself.

4. In that view of the matter and considering the correspondence 1 Criminal Appeal No.948 of 2006 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:37:36 ::: 14-SPMA-2-20.doc exchanged between the applicant, respondent no.4-company and Special Court from time to time and the contents of the certification report, I am of the view that the application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order :-

(i) Miscellaneous Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

(ii) Miscellaneous Application is disposed in the above terms.

(A.K. MENON, J.) 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:37:36 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court