BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.1184  OF 2009 AGAINST C.D.NO.2 OF 2005 DISTRICT FORUM-KHAMMAM

Between:

m/S Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.,
rep. by its authorized person
regd.Off: B-10/4, Waluj MIDC,
Industrial Area, WALUJ, Aurangabad
District Maharashtra State

                                                        Appellant/opposite party no.1

                A N D

1.   Bodepudi Madhusudhan Rao S/o B.Radha Krishna
Aged about 47 years, Medical Practitioner
R/o Opp. To Sequeal Club, Khammam Town
and District

Respondent/complainant

2.   M/s Share Pro Services, rep. by its
authorized person Satam Estate 3^rd floor
above bank of Baroda, Cardinal Grecious
Road, Chakla Andheri (East) Mumbai-099

3.   Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager H.No.8-2-672, Megacity-142,
1^st Floor, Road NO.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderfabad-034

                                                Respondents/opposite parties no.2 and 3

Counsel for the Appellants                     M/s D.R.Ramaraju

Counsel for the Respondent                   Sri V.Gourisankara Rao(R1)
                                                        Served(R2)
                                                        M/s V.Krishnamohan (R3)

        QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY

                                TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.             The first opposite party has  filed appeal challenging the order of the District Forum which had directed the opposite parties to  return the share certificates of 100 shares of Sterlite Industries Ltd..

2.              The first respondent filed complaint with the averments that he purchased 100 shares of the appellant-company. The first respondent deposited one share certificate with the third respondent company on 10.04.2000 for dematerilisation which was rejected by the third respondent.  The appellant or the respondents no.2 and 3 have not returned the share certificate to the first respondent. The nature of business and the capital of the appellant-company had gone through corporate restructuring  whereby its  optical fiber cable business was demerged and the same was transferred to Sterlite Optical Ltd which had paid through cheque an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent as consideration for buyback of the shares. The appellant-company and the respondents no.2 and 3 played fraud on the first respondent.

3.             The first respondent rejected the cheque. The appellant-company issued another cheque which was also returned by the first respondent. The first respondent got issued notice to the appellant and the respondents no.2 and 3. The appellant-company had sent the share certificate to the first respondent after a period of 3 ½ years. The first respondent returned the cheque for redemption value to the second respondent-company with a request to return 100 shares of the Sterilite Industries Ltd for which there was no response from the second respondent.

4.             The appellant company and the second respondent filed common written v