PRATIBHA DILIP KARNAD Vs. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint of the petitioner in this petition filed under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') is that Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ('the Company1), in which the petitioner hold shares, has not dematerialised 100 shares for which the petitioner has made a request to the company and that it has not issued 100 bonus shares in respect of the above 100 shares.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he acquired 700 shares by way of transfer which were all registered in his name. In addition, he had purchased another 550 shares which were also registered in his name. These 550 shares were dematerialised while the other 700 shares were in physical form. Later when he sent these 700 shares for demat, the company dematerialised only 600 shares. The company had declared 1:1 bonus shares and as against the entitlement of the petitioner of 1,250 bonus shares, the company credited in his demat account only 1,150 shares. Thus, according to the petitioner, the company has failed to credit his demat account with 200 shares (including 100 bonus shares) and as such he has sought for suitable direction to the company in this regard.

(3.) WE have considered the pleadings and we have also seen the plaint filed in the Civil Court in Agra and the order passed by the said Court. In the last paragraph of that order, which is in Hindi, the court has ordered delivery of the shares mentioned in Annexure-B to the plaintiff which contains 100 shares impugned in the petition. Since the date of order of the civil court is 20-6-1998 and since bonus shares were issued in respect of these 100 shares only in 1999, the order of the civil court in respect of the original 100 shares would cover these bonus shares also. Since the company has acted in terms of the order of the civil court, there is no scope for us to pass any order on this petition. Further, since the name of the petitioner continues as the registered shareholder in the register of members of the company, the question of ordering rectification of the register of members does not arise. As far as the prayer of the petitioners for directing the company to pay compensation for the delay in dematerialisation of 600 shares, the granting of such prayer is beyond the scope of section 111A.