The entitlement of the appellant to have the shares back with proper registration and the issuance of duplicate copies of the shares after cancelling the intermediate transfers.

Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President— In this appeal an order of the Calcutta District Forum-II dismissing a complaint of the appellant petitioner has been challenged. The petitioner’s case is that they sent 5,000 enquiry shares to M/s. Tata Share Registry Ltd. (respondent No. 2) for transfer in their names. Out of them 4,900 shares were sent back to the petitioners M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. after transfer. The remaining 100 shares which were not transferred were again lodged by the petitioners to respondent No. 2 for registration of the transfer. This time 50 shares were received back after registration of the transfer. The respondent No. 2 ultimately intimated that the aforesaid 50 shares were lodged with them by M/s. Robert Fleming Nominees Ltd. (respondent No. 3) for transfer in their names and these were duly transferred. The petitioners prayed for a restraining order on the respondent No. 2 from transferring these 50 shares to any other person.

2. The District Forum held that the shares were duly transferred to the present transferee (respondent No. 4) according to law. The Forum further held that the petitioners did not make any prayer for issue of duplicate shares after cancellation of shares to different parties. So according to the Forum the prayer for restraining the transfer to any other person at this stage is infructuous. The Forum has accordingly dismissed the petitioner’s case.

3. Among the respondents, only respondent No. 1 has entered appearance and filed a written objection. From this objection it appears that the appellants sent 50 shares of Rs. 10/- each for transfer in their favour. The respondent No. 2 returned them the aforesaid shares by a letter No. 73604 dated 22.7.1997 intimating that the transfer form was defective as it did not contain the signature, name and address of the witness. Nothing was heard from the petitioners since then.

4. Meanwhile the said 50 shares were lodged with respondent No. 2 for transfer in favour of Stock Holding Corporation of India A/C the Capital Markets Ltd. (respondent No. 5). Subsequently the said 50 shares were again lodged for transfer in favour of Robert Fleming Nominees Ltd. (respondent No. 3). Since the documents are in order, the transfer was allowed. The respondent No. 2 informed the appellants that unless a Court’s order was available restraining further transfer they were bound to allow the registration of the transfer.

5. All the intermediate transferees were made parties, but they did not come to contest the appeal.

6. The appellants, however, gave a rejoinder against the statement made in the written objection of respondent No. 1. Their contention is mat the letter referred to in the written objection of respondent No. 1 was never sent to them and the appellants never received the same. According to them the appellants sent back 100 shares out of which transfer of 50 shares was registered and no action was taken in respect of the remaining 50 shares. So the complainant has reiterated its demand for sending back the aforesaid shares after registration of the transfer according to law.

7. From the documents filed it is found that actually 100 shares were ultimately sent by the complainant for registration and out of them 50 shares were ultimately received by the complainant. As opposite party No. 1’s version in the written objection is that transfer of 50 shares could not be registered as the transfer document was defective, it was incumbent upon him to show that these shares were sent back to the sender of the shares. But the sending back of the shares is not proved by any authentic document. No oral evidence has also been adduced by any of the parties. The intermediate transferees were made parties, but strangely enough none of them appeared to contest the case or the appeal. Had they any real interest in the shares in question there is no reason why they will choose not to contest the case if the shares were actually returned to the complainan