AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD learned Lawyers for both sides. It is accepted that the present dispute revolves round the question of shares which are in the custody of respondent-1. In the register of shares the name of the present appellant appears as the holder of those 32 shares. Learned Lawyer for the respondent-1 submits that since the original shares are lying in their custody and standing in the name of the appellant there cannot be any question of issuing duplicate share certificates to the appellant. He submits that respondent No. 1 may be directed to hand over the disputed shares in original to the present Appellant.
LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-2 submits that he had purchased those shares. It is learnt that the said petition has not yet been disposed of because of pendency of a criminal case between the opposite parties-2 and 3 before a Magistrate''s Court in Calcutta. It is accepted that no case has been filed in a Civil Court by respondent-2 claiming title (sic) over those shares. It is clear that the Criminal Court cannot decide the dispute regarding the question of titled (sic) shares. In view of the circumstances narrated above, we think that respondent-1 be directed to hand over the original shares to the appellant. In that view of the matter, judgment of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed on contest. With this observation, the case is disposed of. Appeal allowed.