Order-21.

Date-30/07/2015.

Practically in this case complainant claimed that complainant purchased 100 Equity shares of the op no.4 from the market through their Stock Broker of Calcutta Stock Exchange on payment of Rs. 4,600/- having distinctive numbers are 10070801 to 10070900, Corresponding Share Certificate No. 49828 and prior to purchase of the complainant’s earlier owner of the said shares was one Ajay Sharma and after purchasing of the said shares complainant wrote a letter to the op no.4 for transfer the aforesaid shares in the complainant’s name on 28.08.1995 and aforesaid shares were sent by the complainant for transferring in the name of the complainant in one sealed envelope with duly completed transfer deed with the said shares and it was sent by registered post with A/D on 28.08.1995 and op no.4 duly accepted the same on 30.08.1995.

But thereafter the shares were not received by the op.So, complainant wrote further a letter to the op when op no.4 vide a letter dated 12.12.1996 informed to the complainant that the captioned shares duly transferred in the name of complainant under folio No. 41231 and sent by registered post with A/D to complainant on 23.11.1995 under registered post.

Thereafter complainant wrote a letter to op no.4 on 17.12.1998 requesting the op no.4 for transfer of the said shares in the complainant’s name.In response to the complainant’s letter op no.4 wrote a letter to the complainant on 06.01.1999 and directed the complainant to submit Indemnity Bond of Rs. 100/- but it is needless to mention that complainant already sent the aforesaid documents to the op on 17.12.1998.So, the letter dated 06.01.1999 has not base at all and due to deficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of the op no.4, complainant filed a suit being Title Suit No. 605/1999 before the Ld. City Civil Court, Calcutta and the Ld. Court considering the fact and circumstances of the case was pleased to pass an order of injunction and directed the op no.4 not to transfer the said shares to any other person or party till the disposal of the suit.

Complainant vide his letter dated 14.06.1999 informed about injunction order given by the Ld. Court in favour of the complainant and also sent a letter of his Advocate on 31.05.1999 and op no.4 acknowledged the same of injunction order but unfortunately the suit was dismissed for default and no step was taken to restore the same as on today no case or suit is pending in respect of the present complaint and in the above circumstances, complainant filed this complaint praying for redressal.

On the other hand op no.3 by filing written statement submitted that the petition is misconceived and non maintainable and barred by limitation and also malafide and also bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and fact remains that the present complaint is barred under C.P. Act 1986.Moreover the Title Suit No. 605/1999 has been dismissed by an order on 10.05.2000 and it is not specifically mentioned as signature of the complainant in the letter deferred and he was requested to send letter as per his specimen signature as recorded and as per an application form for change in signature was mailed to the complainant vide letter dated 04.01.2011 for compliance and he was also requested to send old and new address proof but that was not done by the op.

Even after receipt of the letter from Sandip Kumar Basu, Advocate on behalf of the complainant dated 20.06.2014, op sent a reply vide letter dated 09.07.2014, requesting him to obtain an order from a Court of competent jurisdiction, for release of TCS shares in favour of his client, after impleading the lodgers of the shares, since Suit No. 605/1999 filed by the complainant was dismissed and thereafter the cause of action arose on 10.05.2000.But this complaint was filed long after that days and it was barred by limitation and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and the present written version was filed by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Further op no.3 also submitted similar type of written version separately challenging the maintainability of the case and op nos. 1 & 2 also submitted similar type of written version and prayed for dismissal of this case.

                                                 Decision with reasons

On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the fact that in respect of the same matter, complainant filed a Title Suit being No. 605/1999 before City Civil Court and that was dismissed on 10.05.2000 when against that no appeal has been preferred or no petition for restoration was filed by the complainant.

Then there is no scope to file the present complaint before this Forum on the ground that complainant himself had no eagerness to get any relief for which the case is dismissed in the City Civil Court, even if it is accepted that the said Suit was dismissed for defaulting and in that case also cause of action for filing the present complainant arose on 10.05.2000.

But peculiar factor is that complainant appeared before this Forum long after 14 years and filed the present complaint on 07.11.2014.But at the time of filing the complaint on 07.11.2014, no application u/s 24A of C.P. Act 1986 was submitted by the complainant praying for condonation of delay and at this stage under any circumstances the appeal cannot be condoned and in reality the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the present complaint is barred by limitation and hopelessly barred by limitation by filing this complaint after lapse of 14 years.

Another factor is that complainant filed a Civil Suit No. 605/1999 before City Civil Court and that was dismissed and complainant did not take any further recourse or action for restoring the same or filing an appeal to get justice and when the matter was decided by City Civil Court, then Forum has no jurisdiction to decide it further.

In the result, the case fails.

Hence, it is

                                                      ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed without any cost against all the ops.