NIRMALJIT SINGH HOON versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 66 · Decided: 06-09-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

66 
A 
NIRMALJIT SINGH HOON 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
September 6, 1972 
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J 
B 
Code of Crimirtal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 156(3), 19:>(1)(c), 
202 and 204-Scope of. 
H-company (in voluntary liquidation) was the owner of 51 % di 1he 
shares in T-company and 707 sha,..,,, out of them were in the possession 
of T-company. The 5th respondent owned the balance of 49% shares. 
In a suit filed by him against the H-company the High Court passed a 
C 
decree directing H-company to deliver the 51 % shares to him on pay· 
ment of a certain sum and issued an injunction reStraining H~company, 
until delivery of the •hares, from exercising its righ!s as hl>lder of those 
shares. 
Some time later one of the liquidators, V, of H-company, and 
M went to the office of T-company where V executed a receipt and an 
indemnity bond. 
The receipt recorded the fact that the 707 share certifi· 
cates were received from the 2nrl respondent, one of the directors of the 
T-company. It also contained two endorsements; one in the handwriting 
D 
<if the 2nd respondent stating "shares with me" and another, addressed to 
the 2nd respondent alleged to have been written by V, stating, "I do not 
want to carry these with me, hence leaving meantime with personally for 
delivery to me later". The indemnity bond purported to indemnify T-com-
pany against any claims by the 5th respondent in respect of the 707 shares 
and contained also certain undertakings. 
H-company took out execution against T-company for the delivery of 
E 
the 707 shares claiming entrustment of the shares to the second respon-
dent by V. Copies of the receipt and the indemnity bond were filed, and 
the originals were shown to the. Counsel for T-company, during the pro-
<:eedings for satisfying them that the copies were correct copies. 
Thereafter, the appellant, another liquidator of the H-company, filed 
a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against respondents 2 
to 5, the directors and Secretary of the T-company, alleging that V and 
F 
M went to the office of T-company for obtaining the 707 shares for deli-
vering them to respondent 5, that the second respondent delivered the 
$hares to V, that since V had a luncheon engagement he did not want te 
take them with him, that the second respondent made the first endorsement 
on the receipt and V himself made the second endorsement to clarify why 
the shares were left with the second respondent, that V took away the 
:indemnity bond with him as the second" respondent wanted the signature 
-of the appellant also, that later, on thaV day, the solicitors of H-company 
G 
$ent their aSBistant C to the second respondent for the shares, that the 
·oecond respondent gave an aSBurance that he would send them through 
the solicitors of the T-company but did not do so, that the second resport-
dent was withholding the shares at the instance of the fifth respondent 
who was, as a result of the injunction, in a position to control the T-com-
pany without having to pay for the 51 % shares and was therefore interested 
in preventing H-company deliverng the shares to him, and that respondents 
2 to 5 were guilty of offences under ss. !20B, 406 and 420, I. P. C. 
H 
The second respondent filed a counter complaint against the appellant, 
V and M, under ss. 467, 471, 193, 474 and 109 LP.C. He alleged that Ille 
707 shares were always lying with the T-company as the T-company 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Ji' 
G 
H 
N, S. HOON V, WEST BENGAL 
67 
claimed a lien over them -in respect of certain payments for incon1e·tax. 
purposes, that the second respondent produced them before V for his ins-
pection, that he objected to the word "received" in the receipt and wanted 
instead the word "inspected", that V declined to alter the receipt and 
thereupon the second respondent wrote out the first endorsement 
with a view 10 clarify that tne shore certificates were still in his custody 
and not with the fifth respondent. 
He denied his having delivered 
them to V or that V entrusted them to him or ihat he prom;sed to hand 
them over to the solicitors Of H-company. 
He alleged thae the appellant 
later on made an interpolation, namely the second endorsement in the re-
ceipt to give a false twist to the first endorsment and to show that the 
certifica.tes were entrusted. to the second respondent by V. 
The Chief Presidency Magistrate directed the police to enquire into 
the appellant's complaint under 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.