Honble KOKJE, J.–This is a petition challenging decision of the trial court re- jecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC. The respon- dent has filed a suit against the petitioners styling it to be a suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of original shares and issuing duplicate shares. It was contended in the plaint that M/s Eternit Everest Ltd. is a Company which had floated a public issue of its shares which was being managed by M/s M.C.S. Ltd. The plaintiff had purchased 300 shares which were recorded in the plaintiffs name in the recor- ds of the company. It is further contended in the plaint that the shares certificates issued by the Company to the plaintiff were lost and are not traceable to the plaintiff. It was further contended that the plaintiff wanted to sell those shares and for that purpose he contacted certain Brokers from Bombay and the plaintiff had signed transfer deeds also for the purpose of forwarding the same to the share bro- kers for sale of the shares. It is stated that the share certificates alongwith transfer deeds have been lost. When the shares were not traceable the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant calling upon them not to transfer the shares in the name of anyone else as the shares had not been sold but have been lost. The plaintiff had in the notice expressed his inability to quote the serial number of the shares also as he did not have it. The plaintiff later on, on enquiry from the defendants office came to know that some of the shares had been transferred in the name of some one else and some shares were yet to be transferred. Ultimately after some correspondence the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming that he be declared owner of the 300 shares which stood originally in his name and also of 300 bonus shares which he should have received as such share holder and all the benefits on the shares originally held by him and on the shares which he was entitled to receive as bonus shares be extended to him. An injunction had also been claimed against transfer of shares without consent of the plaintiff.

(2). The defendants took the plea that the suit was impliedly barred by the provisions of Section 111 and 113 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was contended that the Company Law provides a complete machinery for dealing with the grievances of the nature raised by the plaintiff in his suit and the provisions being special provisions oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The contention of the plaintiff on the other hand was that there is no express bar against entertainment of a suit in respect of shares and the suit was maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC. It was also contended that an implied bar cannot be easily inferred in the situation. The civil courts right to give a declaration as to the title to the shares cannot be said to be ousted by provisions of the Companies Act.

(3). The trial court agreed with the plaintiff and rejected the application. Hen- ce this revision petition.

(4). Sub-Sections 4 to Sub-Section 10 of Section 111 of the Companies Act which are relevant for the purpose read as under:-

``(4):- If

(a) the name of any person-

(i) is without sufficient cause, entered in the register of members of a company or

(ii) after having been entered in the register, is, without sufficient cause, omitted therefrom;or

(b) default is made, or unnecessary delay takes place, in entering in the register the fact of any person having become, or ceased to be, a member (including a refusal under Sub-Section (1)) the person aggrieved, or any member of the company, or the company, may apply to the Company Law Board for rectification of the register.

(5):- The Company Law Board, while dealing with an appeal prefer- red under Sub-Section (2) or an application made under Sub Section (4) may, after hearing the parties, either dismiss the appeal or reject the application, or by

(a) direct that the transfer or transmission shall be registered by the company and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document