Bengaluru: A sharebroker’s decades-old quest to reclaim shares he said were purchased in Nov 1990 hit a wall last month, with the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruling he was not a consumer and the 26-year delay in approaching the commission was inexcusable.The dispute dates back to Nov 15, 1990, when KN Gopalkrishna, from Rajajinagar, told the commission he had purchased shares of Larsen & Toubro and Reliance at the Bengaluru Stock Exchange for Rs 70,722. After selling a portion of the shares to various buyers, the 79-year-old retained 300 shares each of the two companies, with delivery memos recording the transaction in his name.Trouble began days later. Gopalkrishna said that while carrying the physical share certificates for registration with the companies, they were stolen. He lodged a police complaint with Ulsoor Gate police station on Nov 21, 1990, where an FIR was registered. On Dec 15, 1990, he wrote to companies requesting them to stop transfer of the missing shares to third parties. Reliance assured him the shares would not be transferred but advised him to obtain an order from a civil court.Accordingly, Gopalkrishna filed a civil suit in 1991 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, seeking permanent injunction against the transfer of the shares and directions to release dividends and other benefits. The court granted an interim ex parte injunction on March 20, 1991. However, in its final judgment on Dec 1, 1999, the civil court dismissed the suit, observing that he should have pursued the remedy available under the Companies Act instead. Gopalkrishna did not challenge the judgment, citing personal difficulties.The matter resurfaced years later when he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban, impleading UltraTech as a third opposite party on the ground it had inherited L&T’s cement business through the April 22, 2004 amalgamation scheme. He sought directions to transfer the shares along with all dividends, bonus shares and other benefits accrued since Nov 15, 1990, into his demat account.The commission, however, was not persuaded even at the admission stage. It observed that Gopalkrishna had himself stated he was a share broker who purchased and resold shares on behalf of clients, a commercial activity excluded from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. It also found no deficiency in service on the part of the companies, noting that the loss of the share certificates and the subsequent litigation arose from the complainant’s own circumstances.The commission further noted that Gopalkrishna had sought condonation of a 9,701-day delay, or about 26 years, in filing the consumer complaint after the cause of action arose in November 1990, and held that the explanation offered for the delay was unacceptable.A bench comprising President K Anita Shivakumar and member Suma Anilkumar, in its order dated July 14, 2026, dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and directed Gopalkrishna to deposit Rs 2,000 as costs to the Consumer Welfare Fund.Anita told TOI: “The case was dismissed on the first day because the delay was too long and we have ordered him to pay a fine for wasting the commission’s time.”
