High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 07 JH CK 0051

Rekha Ranjan Rai and Others vs Datamatics Financial Ltd.

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 16 July 2001 · Citation: (2002) 1 CCC 172 : (2001) 1 JLJR(Jhar) 234

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurusharan Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal from Original Order 172 of 1994 (R)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 259 words

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Plaintiffs are appellants. They filed Title Suit No. 14 of 1994 for injunction restraining defendant from transferring the value/price of the share certificates held by them to any other person. Plaintiffs purchased share from defendant-Company through its unit Master Gain, 1992. They handed-over their respective share certificates to a broker for realisation of the present price/sale value from the defendant, which were lost on 29.1.1994 by the said broker.

2.

The broker lodged station diary entry No. 651, dated 30.1.1994 and wrote letter to the defendant on 1.2.1994. But defendant asked the broker to obtain necessary prohibition order from competent court to enable it to put permanent "stop transfer" mark on the above share.

3.

Plaintiffs filed the present suit. Seristadar of the court pointed out a number of defects therein. The plaint did not disclose the fact showing that the Court of Munsif. Bermo at Tenughat had a jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4.

Admittedly the sole defendant resided and carried on business at Bombay and not within the jurisdiction of the said Court. Total valuation of the subject matter of dispute, i.e. share certificate was Rs. 33900/-. which was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif''s Court.

5.

It was, therefore, rightly held that the Court of Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat had neither territorial nor pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By impugned order dated 28.4.1994. plaint was rightly returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6.

There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed.

7.

Appeal dismissed..