DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1331 of 2009 Date of Inst: 24.09.2009 Date of Decision: 10.02.2011 Munish Kapur s/o Sh.Prem Sagar Kapur r/o House No.344, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory having its registered office B 10/4, Waluj, MIDC Ind. Area, Waluj, District Aurangabad-431133. 2. M/s Sharepro Services, Regd. Office Satam Estate, 3rd Floor, above Bank of Baroda, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai-400009. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Anish Babbar, Adv. for complainant Sh.Hitender Kansal, Adv. for OP-1. OP-2 exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Munish Kapur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Provide the valid share certificate of equal number as applied whose value comes to Rs.1,75,000/- as on date along with bonus and dividend as entitled i.e. Rs.30,000/-. ii) Pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. iii) Pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was allotted 25 shares valuing Rs.5/- each as per the share certificates bearing distinctive Nos.046086376-046086400 (Annexure B to C). According to the complainant, he was possessing the shares in physical form and was not interested to sell the said shares. So, he applied for issuance of new share certificates in place of old share certificates. OPs vide its letter dated 06.11.2002(C-1) accepted the request of the complainant to continue as a shareholder and required him to submit the old certificates to enable them to issue the new valid certificate. Accordingly, the complainant sent the CTC copy of the certificates to the OPs for issuance of new certificate. It has been pleaded by the complainant that vide letter dated 12.03.2003 (Annexure C-3), the complainant was informed the Folio Nos. of the shares but new valid certificate were not issued to him so far. It has been averred by the complainant that OPs might have sold the said certificates without his consent which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In reply filed by OP-1, it has been pleaded that in the year 2002 it had filed a Company petition under section 391 of the Companies Act for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement popularly known as Buy Back Scheme. Pursuant to the said scheme sanctioned by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 19.04.2002, relevant option form along with repurchase consideration warrant were duly sent to all the shareholders of the company. As per the scheme, in the event of non-receipt of duly signed and executed option form within the stipulated period, it was presumed that such share holders were not interested to retain the shares and the same were considered under the Scheme of Arrangement. According to OP-1, the consideration for buy back of the shares was Rs.150/- per share. The company had sent the consideration cheque of Rs.100/- per share along with the option form. It has further been pleaded that as no option was received from the complainant and therefore, the shares held by the complainant were cancelled/repurchased accordingly. According to OP-1, the complainant was holding invalid physical shares and it has no knowledge whether the complainant has ever written any letter to the OPs expressing his intention to retain the shares. It has further been pleaded that Annexure C-2 is the photocopy of the transfer deed and not the CTC copy of the certificate as alleged by the complainant and thus, the complainant has not sent the invalid share certificate as required vide letters 06.11.2002 and 12.03.2003. All other averments made in the complaint are vehemently denied. According to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. OP-2 sent its affidavit through speed post stating that somewhere in the year 2000, OP-1 appointed OP-2 as the Registrar and Transfer Agents but w.e.f. 01.04.2007 M/s Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. has been appointed as the new Registrar and Transfer Agents. It has further been pleaded in the said affidavit that on directions of OP-1, it handed over the entire record to M/s Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. and thus it was not in a position to defend the case in absence of any information. In these circumstances, according to OP-2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. The case of OPs is that in pursuant to the Buy Back Scheme sanctioned by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the relevant option form along with repurchase consideration warrant were duly sent to the shareholders including the complainant. The complainant was required to exercise his option within the stipulated period failing which it was to be presumed that the shareholder is not interested in retaining the shares. According to OPs, the complainant did not exercise his option within the period prescribed nor did he return the consideration cheque. So it was presumed that the complainant is not interested in getting the shares after revalidation. So his shares were dealt with as per the scheme and cancelled accordingly. From letter (Annexure C-3) annexed by the complainant himself, it is apparent that he was required to send the duly executed transfer deed to OPs. There is no averment or evidence to the effect that the duly executed transfer deed was ever sent to OPs by the complainant. In the absence of the said transfer deed, the shares could not be reissued in favour of the complainant. In these circumstances, the cancellation of the share certificates is perfectly valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 10.02.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
