Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The petitioner is the widow of one Malchand Mantri, who died on or about January 8, 1971. Since then, she has not been keeping good health. She also cannot read or write or even speak properly. In, view of the aforesaid physical condition of the petitioner, she always reposed trust and confidence on her son, G. P. Mantri, and after his death in 1979, on his two sons, namely, Shrikant Mantri and Devendra Mantri, who used to manage and look after her entire financial matters, including the shares in question. Smt. Somani, who often came and stayed with the petitioner at her residence at Calcutta had full access to the valuables, movables and other properties and documents of the petitioner. During her intermittent temporary stays, Smt. Somani offered assistance and advice to the petitioner in the matter of looking after her properties and affairs and, therefore, the petitioner, at the instance of Smt. Somani, signed various documents on different occasions. But she came to know of the real sinister implications and the most prejudicial consequences of signing the documents at the instance of Smt. Somani. Only recently, when, in October, 1987, the petitioner received a proxy form from Pilani Investment and Industries Corporation Ltd. In which company also the petitioner has purchased shares, wherein she found that the name of Srikant Mantri was mentioned as the second joint holder of the said shares. The petitioner was astonished to know that the name of someone else in addition to her name had been put up on the said shares. Therefore, she took steps to find out the details about all her shares, including the shares in question. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Somani, had so managed to see that the record of the shares could not reach the hands of the petitioner and, therefore, till October, 1987, the petitioner could not know of the aforesaid manipulation of respondent No. 2. In view of the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, she could not openly agitate against the action of respondent No. 2 in getting the names of others inserted in the share certificates. She, however, persuaded respondent No. 2 to issue necessary letter acknowledging her absence of interest in the said 10,774 shares and evincing absence of any objection to the deletion of her name from the register of members of the respondent company as the second registered holder of the said shares, jointly with the petitioner. However, respondent No. 2 did not yield to the persuasion of the petitioner.