Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 1 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
MHCC010029622019
Presented on : 14-03-2019
Registered on : 02-01-2020
Decided on : 15-10-2025
Duration : 6 years, 7 months, 1 days
EXHIBIT NO.10.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
S. C. SUIT NO. 28 OF 2020
Kumar Devdas Advani )
Age 61 years, Indian Inhabitant )
Residing at P/08, Yvonne Nahar Amrit )
Shakti, Chandivali, Powai, Mumbai )...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sarala Chandak )
Adult, Indian Inhabitant )
Residing at 202, Labh Darshan, )
South Pond Road, Ville Parle (West), )
Mumbai 400056 )
2. M/s. Suresh Rathi Securities Pvt. Ltd. )
The Share broking Company registered )
Companies Act having its Regd. office at )
11 & 12, ‘A’ Wing Mithila Apts., )
Co-Op Housing Soc, J.B.Nagar, )
Andheri (E), Mumbai )
3. U R Investments )
Share & Stock Brokers )
B2/54, Technocrat Co-op Hsg Soc, )
-- 1 of 8 --
S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 2 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi )
Mumbai 400025 )
4. Neyveli Lignite Corp Ltd. )
The Company registered under the )
Companies Act having its Regd. )
Office at Neyveli House, 135 Periyar )
EVR H Chennai 600 010, India )
Mumbai Office: No. 501 Anookul CHS )
Ltd, D’ Building, ‘A’ Wing, Manish Park, )
Near Pump House, Andheri (East), )
Mumbai – 400 093 )...Defendants
Appearance :
Shri Narendra Gharat, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Ex-parte against defendants no.1 to 3.
None for defendant no.4. (Without Written Statement).
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI P.G.BHOSALE.
(COURT ROOM NO.62).
DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 15th October, 2025)
1. This is suit for declaration of ownership of shares and
mandatory injunction for transfer of shares in the name of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s case in short is as under:-
2. The plaintiff states that the defendant no.1 was the original
share holder of the suit shares. She had sold these shares to him. The
defendants no.2 and 3 are the share brokers / agents who sold these
-- 2 of 8 --
S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 3 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
shares on behalf of defendant no.1 to him. The defendant no.4 is the
registered company registered under the Companies Act whose shares have
been sold to him.
3. The plaintiff states that the defendant no.4 Neyveli Lignite
Corporation Ltd. issued share certificates bearing certificate no. 173096,
folio No. N0000020 for 100 Equity Shares having Distinctive Nos.
1564342401 to 1564342500. The plaintiff was desirous of purchasing
these shares. He had negotiations with defendant no.1 and after
negotiations with her, the price of shares was fixed and the plaintiff
purchased these shares from the defendant no.1. The plaintiff paid the
consideration amount of these shares to the defendant no.1. Thereafter the
defendant no.1 signed the share transfer forms and handed over the forms
to the plaintiff with original share certificate no. 173096. The plaintiff has
annexed the original share certificates with this plaint. The plaintiff had
taken the transfer deed / forms from the defendant no.1 including the
NOC of the defendants to transfer the suit shares in his name.
4. The plaintiff states that when he approached the defendants
for transfer of the said shares, he came to know that the transfer forms
executed were not in order and other transfer forms should be executed.
The plaintiff requested the defendant no.1 to sign fresh transfer forms as
per the prescribed format, but the defendant no.1 never accepted his
request and never executed the transfer forms in the prescribed format.
The plaintiff states that as the shares have not been transferred in his
name, he is not getting the benefits of the said shares. He states that as the
original shareholders has signed on the transfer forms, she is not entitled
-- 3 of 8 --
S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 4 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
to get the benefits of these shares and he should get the benefit of the
shares.
5. The plaintiff states that he met the defendants no.2 and 3 in
the month of November, 2018 and requested them to sign and transfer the
forms in his name. The defendant no.1 flatly refused to sign on the transfer
forms. Thus, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the
defendants for declaration that he is the owner of the suit shares i.e. share
folio no. N0000020 containing 100 Equity Shares. The plaintiff has prayed
for mandatory injunction against the defendants no.2 and 3 to execute all
such forms as required to transfer the suit shares from the name of
defendant no.1 in his name. The plaintiff has also prayed for mandatory
injunction directing the defendant no.4 to transfer the suit shares i.e. share
folio no. N0000020 containing 100 Equity Shares from the name of
defendant no.1 in his name. The plaintiff has prayed that all the benefits
that have accrued in respect of the suit shares i.e. share folio no.
N0000020 containing 100 Equity Shares including dividends, bonus shares
be given to him. Lastly he has prayed to decree the suit.
6. Upon the suit, the summons were issued to all the defendants.
The suit summons were served upon all the defendants. The defendants
no.1 to 3 failed to appear and file their written statements and contest the
suit despite service of summons. So the suit proceeded ex-parte against
defendants no.1 to 3. The defendant no.4 appeared through advocate and
submitted that it does not want to file written statement. Hence the suit
proceeded without written statement of defendant no.4.
-- 4 of 8 --
S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 5 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
7. Upon hearing the advocate of plaintiff, upon reading the
plaint, the following points arise for my consideration. I have recorded my
findings and answered them along with reasons as under :
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration
that he is the owner of suit shares ?
“In the
negative.”
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory
injunction against the defendants no.2 and 3 to
execute all such forms as required by defendant
no.1 to transfer the suit shares folio no.
N0000020 containing 100 Equity Shares from the
name of defendant no.1 in his name ?
“In the
negative.”
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory
injunction against defendant no.4 company to
transfer the suit shares i.e. share folio no.
N0000020 containing 100 Equity Shares from the
name of defendant no.1 in his name ?
“In the
negative.”
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
prayed for ?
“In the
negative.”
5. What order and decree ? “The suit is
dismissed as
per final order.”
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO.1 TO 4 :-
8. The plaintiff Kumar Devdas Advani has filed his affidavit of
examination-in-chief through his Constituted Power of Attorney Mr. Tarun
Dayabhai Rathod below Exh.5. He has reiterated the contents of the plaint
-- 5 of 8 --
S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 6 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
in his affidavit of examination-in-chief. He has filed following documents
along with list of documents (Exh.6) :
Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit No.
1. Original Share Certificate. Exh.7.
2. Original Share Transfer Form. Exh.8.
9. The plaintiff states that the defendant no.1 Sarala Chandak
was the original shareholder of the suit shares. She sold the shares to him.
The defendants no.2 and 3 are the share brokers / agents who sold these
shares on behalf of defendant no.1 to him. The defendant no.4 is the
company registered under the Companies Act, whose shares he has
purchased.
10. The plaintiff states that the defendant no.4 company had
issued share certificate dated 24/07/1992 bearing Certificate No. 173096
and Folio No. N0000020 for 100 Equity Shares having Distinctive Nos.
1564342401 to 1564342500 and referred as suit shares. Upon going
through the plaint, the affidavit of examination-in-chief, the original share
certificate, the share transfer form, it appears that the plaintiff has not
proved his case on merits.
11. The original share certificate is issued in the name of
defendant no.1 Sarala Chandak. However, the share transfer form dated
26/10/1999 doesn't bear the name of the plaintiff anywhere. The share
transfer form is signed only by defendant no.1. This share transfer form
neither bears the name of the plaintiff nor his signatures on it. The plaintiff
has not specified the consideration amount for which he has purchased
-- 6 of 8 --
S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 7 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
these shares. He has not given the date of purchasing the shares. The
plaintiff has not specified the dates when he had met the defendants and
when he had requested them to transfer the share certificates of the shares
in his name. There is no evidence about purchasing of shares from
defendant no.1. The share transfer form does not bear the name and
signatures of the plaintiff. There is no evidence that the benefits accruing
in respect of the shares has not been given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
must show his legal right, title and interest in the shares. He has not shown
his legal right, title and interest in these shares. So the plaintiff is not
entitled for declaration of the ownership of the shares. Mandatory
injunction cannot be passed against the defendants to transfer the suit
shares in the name of the plaintiff without any evidence of purchasing
them. Therefore the plaintiff has failed to make out his case. Accordingly I
answer all the points in negative and dismiss the suit by passing the
following order :
- ORDER -
1. The suit is hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Date : 15/10/2025. (P. G. Bhosale)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Mumbai
1. Directly dictated on computer on : 15/10/2025.
2. Checked on : 17/10/2025.
3. Signed on : 17/10/2025.
4. Delivered to Certified Copy Section on :
-- 7 of 8 --
S.C.Suit No. 28/2020. 8 Ex-parte Judgment (Exh.10).
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
17/10/2025. 1.53 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri P.G.Bhosale.
(Court Room No.62).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 15/10/2025.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 17/10/2025.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 17/10/2025.
-- 8 of 8 --