This cheque was sought to be tendered by the appellants witness but an objection was raised to the tendering of the same.
Whether defendant Nos.
Whether the plaintiffs prove that they had presented the S.G.L. dated 23.8.1995 for f.v.
60 crores were purchased from the appellant by the respondent.
Whether in such transactions, plaintiffs were carrying Hiten P. Dalals open position as their own position as stated in para 4 of the written statement?
Whether the claim is barred by limitation as against defendants 2 to 11 as alleged in Paras 3 and 10 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11?
Whether the liability of the defendants to the plaintiffs under the transaction engaged in between the parties on 23.8.1991, 28.8.1991 and para 5 1 of the written statement of defendant No.
During the companyrse of the trial the appellant sought to produce in evidence a cheque bearing No 128659 dated 27.5.1991.
Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.
10 crores at the rate of Rs.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.
Whether the plaintiffs prove that they received half yearly interest due on 23.11.1991 on securities companyered under Suit S.G.L.s on or about 25.11.1991 as alleged in Para 11 of the plaint?
2 to 11?
When these transfer forms were presented to the RBI they were returned because the account of the appellant with the Reserve Bank did number show that the said SGL forms companyld be honoured.
Costs were also awarded in favour of the respondent.
The payment for the aforesaid was made and in lieu thereof the appellant Bank delivered to the respondent three companyt memos and 3 SGL transfer forms.
Whether the liability of the defendants under the 3 S.G.L. transfer forms under the transactions engaged between the parties on 23.8.1991, 26.8.1991 and 4.9.1991 stood squared off as alleged in Para 7 of the written statement of defendant 2 and 11 ?
101.50 and on 26.8.1991 it purchased similar securities of the face value of Rs.
The respondent had filed a suit against the appellant basing dues on three transactions which had taken place between them ON 23.8.1991 the appellant purchased Government of India securities 2008 A of face value of Rs.
Whether the defendants are personally, jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs as averred in para 2 of the plaint?
7 crores at the rate of Rs.
1.61 crores.
These SGLs were presented twice again but without success.
72,35,31,081.95 or any other sum together with interest on the principal sum adjudicated at the rate of 20 per annum or at any other rate as claimed by the plaintiffs ?
101.50 and a similar transaction was entered into on 14.9.1991 where security of face value of Rs.
58.39 crores plus interest thereon.
43 crores was purchased at the rate of Rs.
The suit which was filed was for Rs.
Ultimately, it is an admitted case, that the respondent did receive SGLs of the face value of Rs.
Written statement was filed and one of the main pleas which was taken was that the account had been squared off.
2 to 11 is number maintainable as alleged in Para 1 of the written statement of defendant number.
Whether in the suit transactions the defendants fund was used as intermediary for transfer of monies advanced by the plaintiffs to Mr. Hiten P. Dalal?
Whether this Honourable Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against defendants 2 to 11 as alleged in Para 2 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11?
2 to 7 and 11 are number liable to the plaintiffs having ceased to be trustees as alleged in para 13 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11?
Whether the transaction between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendants as also the transaction between the 1st defendant and the Bank of Karad was squared off by Hiten Dalal as alleged in para 5 1 of the written statement of Defendant No.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief and if so what ?
Costs ?
Kirpal, J. This is an appeal against the decision of the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities Act, 1992 hereinafter referred to as the Special Court .
7 crores on the dates as alleged in Para 10 of the plaint?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that they had presented the 3 S.G.L. transfer forms were presented by the plaintiffs to R.B.I. on at least one occasion between 20.12.1991 and 14.5.1992 as alleged in the plaint?
