AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)
Heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. for the review petitioner, and Mr. R. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, and Mr. K N Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Patowary, for the respondent No. 1.
This is an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a review of the Judgment & Order dated 10.06.2026 in FAO No. 62/2025 passed by this Court.
Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Senior Counsel, has referred to the following paragraphs of the impugned judgment in respect of which review has been sought:
“23.At the outset, it would be profitable refer to the prayers made by the plaintiff/petitioner (subsequently substituted by the present appellant) in the application for temporary injunction in the Title Suit No. 41/2012 before the Learned Civil Judge, Jorhat which are as follows:
"In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Honour would be pleased to pass an ad-interim injunction Restraining the Opposite Party No.2, her servants, workmen, employees and agents from causing any transfer, in whatever nature, in respect of 861918 shares of B & A Limited lying with Opposite Party No. 3 in its account Bearing No. DP ID IN 301151 and client ID 26424547 and further restrain the Opposite Party No. 2 from using the delivery slips lying with the Opposite Party No. 2 bearing number from AA44026920 to 929; and restraining/directing the Opposite Party No. 3 namely HDFC Bank Limited not to transfer the 861918 shares of B & A Limited lying in its account Bearing No. bearing DP ID IN 301151 and client ID 26424547; and to issue show-cause notices upon the Opposite Parties as to why the ad-interim injunction should not be made absolute and upon the perusal of the cause/causes shown, if any, Your Honor would be graciously pleased to make the ad-interim injunction absolute; and/or Pass such further other order(s) as your Honor may deem fit and proper."
24.It is an admitted position that the aforesaid prayer had been conceded to by the defendant/opposite party, which is also reflected in the impugned order as follows:
"On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 has submitted that the O.P No. 2 has no objection in granting injunction restraining the O.P No. 2 from transferring the aforesaid shares."
25.The same has also been submitted by Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2 in the course of hearing of the instant appeal.
26.That being the position, the proper course of action of the part of the learned Trial Court would have been to dispose of the application in terms of the aforesaid concession. It is the admitted position that under the NSDL Rules and By-Laws and more particularly Rule 12.6.1, in case of death of one of the holders in a joint demat account, shares can be moved to another demat account solely in the name of surviving holder merely on receipt of the application in the from specified in Annexure-O along with the copy of the death certificate duly attested by Notary Public or by a Gazetted Officer along with copy of death certificate of the deceased holder. Therefore, the transfer or transmission is not automatic, but requires an application in proper form being made by the surviving account holder, which the defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2 could not have made in case of disposal of the injunction application in the aforesaid terms. Under the circumstances, the insistence of the Learned Trial Court to adhere to the "legal framework" as understood by it, appears to be misconceived. No violation of the aforesaid rules would have been occasioned by such a consent order and therefore, the question of violation of any legal framework would also not arise. The Learned Trial Court also held that under the aforesaid NSDL Rules, the opposite/respondent No. 2 was empowered to transfer the shares to her individual account upon the death of the other joint holder but that was precisely the fundamental question to be decided in the suit as it is inseparably linked to the question of the real ownership of the said shares, which ownership was claimed by the Plaintiff/Appellant and in respect whereof, a declaration was sought in the suit.
27.In the above view of the matter, the impugned Order dated 15.09.2025 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and the appeal is disposed of with the direction that the respondent No. 2 herein shall not transfer the 8,61,918 equity shares lying in the demat account No. DP ID IN 301151 client ID 26424547 to any other account and the respondent No. 3 is also directed not to facilitate any such transfer.”
It is the submission of Mr. D. Mozumder that the appeal was substantially decided on the basis of a concession made by the review petitioner that she had no intention to transfer or alienate the shares to any third party during the pendency of the suit, but the operative direction contained in the judgment travels beyond the scope of such concession and restrains transfer of the shares to any other account, a relief which was neither prayed for by the appellant nor conceded to by the review petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. D. Mozumder that, as the counsel for the appellant, he had not made any such concession that the shares in question could not be transmitted to the individual account of the appellant, but only that the appellant would not transfer the said shares to any third party during the pendency of the suit.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment under review would show that what has been observed by this Court is the submission of learned counsel in support of the concession made before the learned trial court by the appellant, stating that the OP No. 2 (appellant herein) has no objection to the grant of an injunction restraining OP No. 2 from transferring the aforesaid shares.
Evidently, the said observations of this Court cannot be understood to have recorded a made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, to the effect that the appellant has no objection to any order restraining the transmission of the shares from the joint account to the individual account of the appellant. The operative part of the order that ultimately came to be passed was on the basis of the interpretation placed by this Court on the concession made before the learned trial court by the OP No. 2/appellant, as reflected in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, and not on any explicit concession that the appellant has no objection to the transmission of the shares to the individual account of the appellant.
Presumably, the only ground on which the review has been sought is that of an error apparent on the face of the record, as is discernable from the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner. In view of what has been discussed above, no such error apparent on the face of the record is found, warranting review of the judgment.
Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed.