CEMENT LTD Vs. POWER GRID CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order we are disposing of an application No. 273 of 1996, filed by Shree Cement Limited in C. P. No. 3/111/94-CLB against Power Grid Corporation Limited and others. This application seeks to restore and revive the proceedings in C. P. No. 3/111 of 1994, which petition stood disposed of by us vide our order dated October 17, 1994. It is necessary for us to recapitulate the background of this application in order to understand and appreciate the prayers in this application for restoration and revival of the abovesaid company petition.

(2.) The petitioner-company, Shree Cement Limited purchased on or about June 13, 1992, from Fairgrowth Financial Services Limited, (Fairgrowth) 10,000--9 per cent. tax free bonds of Rs. 1,000 each issued by the respondent-company. These bonds were initially issued by the respondent-company and owned by Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited being the last record holder of the said bonds. The petitioner-company paid the consideration which is also evidenced by a certificate issued by the bankers of Fairgrowth. The petitioner-company took delivery of the bonds which are transferable by endorsement and delivery and lodged the same with the respondent-company to record and register the transfer through their letter dated June 26, 1992. Thereafter, the respondent-company, vide its letter dated July 15, 1992, called for a transfer deed or to provide information in accordance with the provisions as contained in the letter for necessary action. In reply the petitioner-company informed that as per the relevant notification issued by the Central Government, the requirement of a transfer deed is dispensed with and only an intimation was sufficient for registering the transfer. In this process more than two months had expired from the date of lodgement, thereafter the respondent-company informed the petitioner-company that Fairgrowth's assets have been attached by the Custodian in terms of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Ordinance, 1992, (TORTS) and as such stated that the petitioner-company may take such action as may be advised. According to the petitioner-company, they are the undisputed owners of these bonds for which full payment has been made and is so reflected in the books of the petitioner-company and is also treated as fully paid bonds in the books of the respondent-company.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the Special Court directed the certification committee appointed by that court, inter alia, to enquire into whether the petitioners were bona fide holders and whether they had paid the consideration. The bonds committee confirmed that the consideration has been paid by the petitioners. In view of these developments and since all the parties had agreed that the Special Court would have jurisdiction in the matter, after recording the statement of the petitioner and the respondent-company the petition namely C. P. No. 3/111/94 was disposed of by the Company Law Board as withdrawn by an order dated October 17, 1994.