Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that op no.1 is a share broking firm who runs its’ business in purchasing and selling different shares of different companies for it’s’ customers and op no.2 is Registrar of op no. 3. On 10.07.1991 complainant purchased 180 shares at the rate Rs. 168/- of op no.3 from Lincoln Industries Ltd for a sum of Rs. 30,240/- through the op no.1 and after purchasing the said shares complainant sent all the original shares certificates along with Share Transfer deed to CPA Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. op no.3 being the Registrar of ITC Ltd. for transferring the said shares in the name of complainant.
But when the complainant enquired the status of transfer with CPA Consultancy Services (P) Ltd., they returned the said shares along with the transfer deed stating some reasons to that effect“please find enclosed transfer deeds and the aforesaid share certificates which were sent to you earlier under cover of our letter dated 16.12.1991 and the same have been returned to the company as undelivered by the postal authorities. We would like to inform you we are unable to register the transfer since the aforesaid transfer deeds have been outdated and witness has not signed the transfer deeds. We would request you to re-lodge the aforesaid share certificates along with duly rectified transfer deeds to enable us to transfer the shares in your name of the complainant.
On receipt of the letter dated 27.11.1992 the complainant wrote a letter on 19.04.1993 to the op no.2 disclosed the entire facts what the CPA Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. mentioned in their letter dated 27.11.1992 and on receipt of the said op no.2 replied to the complainant by a letter dated 01.09.1993 and provided the address of M/s. Lincoln Industries Ltd. (sold the share to the complainant).
Subsequently complainant approached M/s Lincoln Industries Ltd. and disclosed everything but they refused the complainant and asked the complainant to approach the M/s. Lincoln Industries Ltd. through proper channel, i.e. through his broker. Complainant contacted the op no.1 and had a regular contact with the same for quite a long time and every time the complainant contacted the op no.1 and he was assured to help out to provide the op no.1 would require some time and finally one fine morning complainant came to know that op no.1 had closed his share trading business of share broking.
The complainant being an aged person and finding no other alternative approached after spending long time to op no.2 by a letter dated 22.03.2014 for requesting the op no.2 to transfer the shares in the name of complainant but after receiving of the letter dated 22.03.2014 op no.2 replied by a letter dated 18.04.2014 “ we wish to inform you that we have already explained you that the concerned share are not standing in your name therefore in the absence of valid documents i.e., fresh transfer Deed/Court Order, we are unable to effect transfer of share in your favour” and further directed to send the op no.2 a Court Order directing the company to transfer the shares in the name of the complainant.
In the above situation complainant finding no other alternative filed this complaint for proper relief.
In this case notice was served upon the ops but they did not turn up to contest this case and in the above situation giving proper time to the ops to contest the case. So, the case was heard exparte.
Decision with reasons
On over all evaluation of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant and also considering the complaint and including other documents and evidence in chief, it is clear that complainant purchased some shares of ITC through op no.1 and he also sent it through op no.1 for registration of his name through op no.2. But op no.2 returned and refused it as because in the said transaction there was no signature of the transferee and the op no.1. After that no doubt complainant approached op nos. 1 & 2 but op no.1 ultimately closed his share broking business when complainant sent a letter to the op no.2 for registration. But they directed the complainant by a letter to re-lodge the aforesaid share along with relief to enable the op nos. 2 & 3 to transfer the same and that letter was of dated 27.11.1993. But complainant failed to get help from the share broker op no.1 because he already closed his business and ultimately ITC op no.3 reported to the complainant to submit order of the Court directing the company for transfer of shares in favour of the complainant and to hand over the complainant to proceed further in this regard and that letter is of dated 18.04.2014.
Fact remains that the share certificates are being Nos. 52472, 145854, 13965, 26172, 159672, 59882, 223698, 173454, 110543, 110899, 8687, 36164 for 180 shares and considering all the above fact, it is clear that complainant purchased the same through op no.1 the shares of ITC i.e. op no.3. But fact remains for the laches of op no.1 practically complainant’s shares has not yet been transferred in his name and truth is that op no.1 already closed his share broking business and in the above situation we find that it is the duty of op nos. 2 & 3 to transfer those shares in the name of complainant Gurmel Singh of 90A, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700025.
Fact remains that it was the duty of the ITC to consider the same to transfer the name of the complainant in the said Deed that is in respect of the said 180 shares. But without taking such administrative legal step op no.3 directed the complainant to bring an order of this Forum. In this regard we have mentioned that such type of direction on the part of the op is completely uncalled for and it was the duty of the op no.3 to do the same as per law. Fact remains as per order of the op no.3, complainant appeared before this Forum.
So, we are disposing of this case by allowing in favour of the complainant against the ops in exparte form.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the ops but without any cost.
Op nos. 2 & 3 are hereby directed to transfer the name of the complainant in respect of disputed 180 shares (details number of shares are noted in the body of the judgement) and on receipt of the same along with copy of the order of this Forum invariably within two months from the date of receipt of such prayer by Gurmel Singh along with this copy of this order and if it is not transferred by op nos. 2 & 3 in that case op nos. 2 & 3 shall have to pay penal damages of Rs. 50,000/- to this Forum.
Op nos. 2 & 3 are hereby directed to comply the order very strictly within 2 months failing which penal action shall be started for which ops shall be responsible and further penalty and fine may be imposed.
