RFA No.74/2004 Page 1 of 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA No. 74/2004

%

16^th February, 2012

ABB LTD.

..... Appellant

Through :

Mr. Nikhilesh Krishna, Advocate.

versus

SANDEEP SURI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through :

Mr. Sunil Magon, Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed

under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the

impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 3.11.2003 by which the suit of

the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction for ownership with

respect to 600 shares of the appellant-company was decreed. I may note

that out of the total of 600 original shares which were in dispute, presently,

the disputes only remains for 50 shares, inasmuch as, 500 shares were

transferred to the respondent No.1/plaintiff during the pendency of this

appeal and another 50 shares were transferred even prior to the institution

of the suit.

2012:DHC:1115

RFA No.74/2004 Page 2 of 4

2. The trial Court has decreed the suit by observing that the claim of

respondent No.1/plaintiff with respect to the disputed shares was lodged in

1997 with the appellant/defendant No.1, but the appellant/defendant No.1

allowed the shares to be dematerialized and transferred much subsequently

in the year 1999 and, therefore is liable to respondent No.1/plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, though at the outset, sought to

urge that the trial Court by its order dated 24.11.1998 had vacated the

interim injunction which was granted in favour of respondent

No.1/plaintiff, and therefore, a lot of 50 shares were allowed to be

dematerialized, however, it transpires that respondent No.1/plaintiff had

filed appeal against the said order dated 24.11.1998 and the appellate Court

on 25.2.1999 injuncted the transferring by the appellant/defendant No.1

and other defendants/respondents of the complete lot of 600 shares

including the dematerialized portion of 50 shares.

4. Though in the interregnum between 24.11.1998 and 25.2.1999 the

lot of 50 shares were allowed to be dematerialized, the learned counsel for

the appellant, however, could not dispute the legal position that an interim

order cannot finally destroy the legal rights of a person. Further, it could

not be disputed that a period of 90 days in law is available as per

Article 116 of Limitation Act, 1963 to challenge an order to a High

Court of a lower Court, however, without waiting for this period of

2012:DHC:1115

RFA No.74/2004 Page 3 of 4

limitation of 90 days to expire, appellant/defendnat No.1 allowed the shares

to be dematerialized and transferred to defendant No.7 who had no title to

the said shares.

5. Surely, the appellant/defendant No. 1 could have informed defendant

No.7 that it was entitled to wait for the period of 90 days for filing of an

appeal under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, however, the decision of

the appellant/defendant No.1 to transfer the shares in haste even before the

expiry of period of limitation before 90 days is clearly something which the

appellant/defendant No.1 ought not to have done.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays that in view of

the aforesaid facts the appellant/defendant No.1 will transfer 50 shares

along with consequential benefits, however the appellant/defendant No.1

be held entitled to recover of the amounts from defendant No.7/respondent

No.7. There can be no disp