MITTAL PORTFOLIOS PVT LTD Vs. SUBIR KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction, relating to 100 equity shares of the defendant no.3 under folio No.383, the plaintiff seeks interim protection.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 entered into an agreement dated October 17, 2013 relating to the shares in the suit. She draws the attention of the Court to the various clauses of the agreement. She submits that, the plaintiff performed its obligations under the agreement. The plaintiff paid the entire consideration money. In fact, the defendant no.1 part performed the obligations under the agreement. The defendant no.1 upon receipt of the consideration money, forwarded the succession certificate as was required. It is subsequent thereto, that the defendant no.1 purported to take a stand that, heirs of the deceased sister of the defendant no. 1 were not willing to have the share transferred. She submits that, as on October 15, 2016 at least, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 stood concluded. According to her the title to the 100 shares stood transferred upon the plaintiff depositing the consideration amount with the defendant no.1 that is on October 15, 2016. The ministerial act of executing the transfer deed and executing other documents so as to secure the title on the shares concerned, were not done. Consequently, the defendant no.1 was holding the 100 shares for and on behalf of the plaintiff as its trustee. In support of the contention that the title to the property in the shares stood transferred upon the plaintiff as on October 15, 2016 if not earlier, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff relies upon Sections 19 and 28 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. She submits that, the intentions of the parties were that the shares would stand transferred to the plaintiff upon the plaintiff paying for the same. She draws the attention of the Court to the various clauses of the agreement between the parties.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that the entire consideration was paid in a staggered manner. The last of the payments was made on October 15, 2016. Therefore, as on October 15, 2016 the property in the shares stood transferred in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequent to such date, the defendant no.1 was holding on the original share certificates as a trustee for and on behalf of the plaintiff.