The High Court · 2025

4. Mrs. Usha Bai, Wo. Not known tothe plaintiff Aged major, PJo. H. No. 12-11- B43l1lA, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061.

5. Mr. Rakesh Jain, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Aged major, R/o. H. No. '12- 11-B43l1lA, Jamai Osmania, Lalltha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061.

6. Mr. Anil Jain, Sio. Not known to the plaintiff, Aged Major, R/o. H. No. 12-11- 843111A, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061.

7. Mrs. Smitha Jain, Wo. Not known to the plaintiff, Aged major, R/o. H. No. 12-11-843111A, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061

8. Mr. Satish Chand Jain, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, aged major, R/o. H. No. 12-'l 1-843/1/A, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061 ...Respondents/Defendants CCCAMP. NO: 16 OF 2010 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and their agents, representatives, nominees or any other person claiming through them from transferring, selling and demat of the 1 1 ,100 Equity Shares of Defendant No. 'l company, bearing Distinctive Nos. 3877101 to-3888400 and Certificate Nos. 38774 to 38884 pending disposal of the suit to any third party. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Rupendra Mahendera Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K. V. Raman The Court delivered the following: I-ION'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I-AXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY C.C.C .A.No.06 o t2010 D MENT: (l'et I lon'blt .\ n lrc/tt ll,lut,tntl ktttrr .\ l,tr ) Aggrieved by the iudgment and decree dated 03-07-2009 passed in O.S.No.139 of 2007 bv the Il Additional Chief Judge, Grv Gvil Cpun, Hvderabad, the present appeai has been filed bvthe appellant-plaintrlf.

2. I-Ieard Sri Rupendra Mahendera, leamed counsel appeanng for the appellant, and Sn K.V.Raman, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents. J Ir h the case of the appellant-plaintiff that one Jhun Jhunu Holdings Limited (|HL), subsidiary comPanv of the allomed 11,300 equrw shares o1 plaintiff, M/s. Amrutha Inn Limited, which is a subsidiarv comPanv of the 1" respondent(defendant No.1)' Subsequently, JHL sold away 2OO eqruw shares out of 11,300 shares and - * thereafter, JHL was merged wrth the appellant-plarniif t't'lt .11 1 order dated 05.08.1999 passed bythe combined Hrgh Crurt of Andhra Pradesh. Further. M/s.Amrutha Inn Limited u,-as also merced \rlrh the 1\1 respondent(defendant Nr.i) company. Alter merger of IHL wrth the appellant company, the appeliant company became the shareholder of 11,100 equity shares of the l" respondent (defendant No.l) companv and one of the directors of JHL hrrs signed the transfer deeds ol 11,100 in favour of respondent Nos.J to 8. Based upon such transfcr deeds. the 2"'1 respondent has transferred the shares in favour of respondent Nos.J to 8 by revalidatrns the transfer in the 1rear 2006. Aggneved by the said transfcr o1: shares in lavour of respondent Nrs.J to 8, the appellant has filed O.S.No.139 of 2OO7 seekins ro declare that the transfer of t t.,tOO equiryshares of the 1., respondent company rn favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8 bi, the 2d respondent as nuli and void and not bindins on the appellant company and aiso sought consequential relief of I perrnanent injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from traruferring, sellmg and demat of the schedule mentioned shares to thtrd parry. Mthout appreciaung anv ol the contentions raised by the appellant, the trial Caun t'trlt judgment dated 03.07.2009 dismrssed the stut 1'e, O.S.No.139 of 2007. Challengurg the same, the present appeal has been fiied.

1. Leamed counsel appeanng for the appellant had contended that JHL was merged with the appellant-companv and one of the Directon of JHL viz.' Mr. jyothi P.Tiberwala has signed the share transfer deeds stl'lmg himself as Director, in fact, Jyothi P.Tiberwala has resigned from the post of Director on 10.10.1998. Leamed counsel had funher contended that when once Jlothi P.Tiberwala has resigned from JHL, he couid not have signed the share transfer deeds and the ?"d respondent ought not to have transferred the shares in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8. lt .1 rs only the appellant-company which can sign rhe transfer deeds. but nor the Ex-Director of JHL. \Mrthotrt appreciatrng anv of the conrentions raised by the appellanr, the tnal C_ourt dismrssed the suit. Theretore, appropriate orders be pa^ssed rn the appeal by settrng asrde the order passed by the rnal C-oun and direct the respondents to hand over 1l.lO0 shares of the 1'' respondenr to the appellant s/ith all consequential benefits- -5. Learrred counsel appeanng for the respondents had contended that the appeilant-company has nol impleaded .fvcthi P.Tiberwala as pan.y in the suit. If the contentron of thc appellant is that the signatures of Jyothi p.Tiber-wala were fabricated and forged, the appellant oughr ro havc taken steps to send the signatures of Jyothi p.Tiberwala ro rhe hand wrrtrne expert to as cerlarn as to whether the siqnatures of Iyothi P.Tiberwala were lorged or not. Leamed counsel had funhcr contended that rhe appellant has not inlormed I I 5 respondents 7 and2 that JHL was merged with the appellant and the respondents were not aware about the same. Therefore, the trial Court has nghtlv dismssed the suit.

6. Flaving considered the said submissions, thrs Coun is of the view that the appellant has not informed respondents I and 2 about the merger of JFII- wth the appellant' Funher, the appellant has not rmpleaded Jyothi P.Tiberwala' who s alleged to have been signed the share transfer deeds in the suit. After followurg the due procedure and havrng found that signatures of Jyothi P.Trberwala on the share transfer deeds matched with his specimen signature Iodged srith them, respondenm 1 and 2 have transferred 11,100 shares of the 1" respondent in favour of respondent Nos'3 to 8. If the signatures of said Jyothi P-Tiberwala were fabricated or fotged' the appellant ought to have taken steps to send those signatures to a hand wnting exPert, but no such steps were hken bv the appellant. The appellant failed I I 6 to produce any evidence to that effect. Therefore. the trial C-ourt was right in dismissrng the suit. Hence, this Qrun is not rnciined to rntertere wrth the reasoned order passed bi, thc trial G>urt.

7. Accordrngly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Misccllaneous petitions, if any' pendins shall stand ciosed //TRUE COPY// A,U: Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI REGISTRAR [) 'r rr"r' ON OFFICER .l.ThellAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivilCourtatHyderabad'(Withrecords,if any) 2 O;; CC to Sri. Rupendra Mahendera, Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K. V. Raman, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies To, DL

5.:A-I EOF I l$t a)\ It' \li\ \b 't.. HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 JUDGMENT CCCA.No.6 ot 2010 DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 6 OF 2010 Between:. M/s. Khaitan Lefin Limited, A Company incorporated under companies Act, having its Registered office at Everest, 46C, J.L.Nehru Road, Kolkata. Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. P.S.Prabhakar. ...AppellanUPlaintiff AND 'l . M/s. Counti Club (lndia) Ltd., A company incorporated under Companies Act, having its Registered office at Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp: Secretariat, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Mr. Y. Rajeev Reddy.

2. M/s. Aarti Consultants Pvt Ltd. Having its Regd. Office at 1-2-285, having its Regd. Office at 1-2-285, Domalguda, Hyderabad - 500029. Rep. by its Manager Sri G. Bhaskar.

3. lvlr. Ramavtar Jain, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff aged major, R/o. H. No. 12-11-B43l1lA, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061.

4. Mrs. Usha Bai, W/o. Not known to the plaintiff Aged maior, R/o. H. No. 12-11- B43l1lA, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061.

5. Mr. Rakesh Jain, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Aged maior, Rio. H. No. 12- 11-B43l1lA, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 50006'l .

6. Mr. Anil Jain, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Aged Major, R/o. H. No. 12-1 1- B43l1lA, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061.

7. Mrs. Smitha Jain, Wo. Not known to the plaintiff, Aged major, R/o. H. No. 12-11-843111A, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061

8. Mr. Satish Chand Jain, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, aged major, Rl/o. H. No. 12-11-843111A, Jamai Osmania, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad - 500061 ...Respondents/Defendants :,, Appeal under Section 96 CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated

03.07.2009 made in O S No.'139 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the llnd Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Rupendra l\rlahendera, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K V. Raman, Advocate for the Respondents This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this order. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I, NAGA LAKSHMI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, DL

1. The ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou( at Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE CCCA.No.6 of 2010 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 9 )