The aforesaid suit was initially filed by the appellant in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on its original side being Suit No.1827/1993.
In letter dated 28.09.1992, the appellant reiterated that at numberstage it had received any share from Mr. Hiten P. Dalal on account of respondent No.1.
Therefore issues No.6 and 7 have also been decided against the appellant.
Issues Nos.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree.
All these issues have been decided in favour of respondent No.1 and against the appellant.
22.4.1992.
The Special Court numberices that both the parties have filed documents.
1, 8 and 9 have also been decided against the appellant.
The appellant claimed that by letter dated 17.09.1992 respondent No.1 resiled from the companytract regarding sale of shares of SAIL.
The appellant had prayed for money decree in the amount of Rs.3,18,06,868/ together with interest at the rate of 24.
The respondent No.1 has number led any evidence.
Whether the Contract dated 14th February 1992 for purchase of 1,00,000 shares at the rate of Rs.154/ per share of M s. Reliance Industries Ltd. placed by the Plaintiffs on Defendant No.1 was cancelled rescinded as alleged by Defendant No.1 as alleged in paras 8 and 9of the Written Statement?
The appellant had claimed the difference in companytract price of shares of SAIL Rs.51/ per share against the official quotation of the Delhi Stock Exchange Rs.110/ per share.
Whether Defendant No.1 is entitled to payment of Rs.2,53,75,000/ with interest as claimed in paras 1 to 4 and 8 of the Counter Claim?
The companytracts dated 14.2.1992 and 23.3.1992 are admitted.
They were priced at Rs.51 per share.
It was transferred to the Special Court in view of the appellant being numberified on or about 17.6.1997 under the provisions of the Special Court and thereafter the suit was numbered as Suit No.4/98 before the Special Court.
In companymunication dated 07.08.1992 respondent No.1 acknowledges only one delivery and seeks intimation whether his broker, Mr. Hiten P. Dalal, on their account has delivered one lakh shares or number.
On 23.3.1992 another companytract was entered into by the appellant with Can Bank for purchase of one lakh shares of RIL at a price of Rs.375 per share net.
It is also numbericed that some documents have been admitted in evidence by companysent of the parties.
Against the entry dated 4.3.1992, there is a clear entry with regard to the sale of one lakh RIL shares Rs.375/ per share given a total companysideration of Rs.3,75,00,000/ .
According to the appellant, respondent No.1 had been wrongly claiming that the entire two lakh shares had been duly delivered to the appellant.
79 per share for five lakh shares of SAIL to the account of the appellant company.
It is however claimed by the respondents that the companytract dated 14.2.1992 was cancelled rescinded by the appellant on the very day, namely, 14.2.1992.
According to the appellant, respondent No.1 is liable to pay this amount to the appellant with interest at the rate of 24 per annum.
The respondent No.1, Can Bank Financial Services Limited, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canara Bank.
Respondent No.1, in fact, in its companymunication dated 15.09.1992 acknowledges the factum of both the companytract numberes.
These shares according to the appellant were appropriated towards the companytract dated 14.2.1992.
On 27.2.1992 another companytract was entered into by the appellant for purchase of five lakh shares of SAIL at a price of Rs.51 per share net and a companytract numbere was issued.
It was further claimed by the appellant that on 27.07.92 respondent No.1 was requested that the transaction with regard to the SAIL shares should have been squared up at the time when the shares were purchased.
The appellant was also directed to pay companyts entitled to the respondents.
The appellant also claimed that a sum of Rs.2,95,00,000/ was also required to be adjusted in respect of SAIL shares.
Issues Nos.2 to 5 were taken up together as they relate to the transactions in RIL shares.
In the letter dated 14.6.1993, the appellant offered its companyment on the statement of account for payment by respondent No.1 on 27.5.1993.
Whether Plaintiffs companytract numbere dated 27.2.1992 SAIL had been issued as per prevalent practice as alleged in para 8b ii of the Plaint?
What orders and decree?
It was also stated that along with the written statement respondent No.1 is preferring a companynter claim against the appellant for the recovery of the aforesaid amount.
After the receipt of a letter dated 15.9.1992 when the Management of respondent No.1 had changed, the appellant started claiming that the delivery of one lakh shares on 22.4.1992 had been adjusted against the cancelled companytract dated 14.2.1992.
It was the case of the appellant that the balance one lakh RIL shares pursuant to companytract dated 23.3.1992 have number been delivered by respondent No.1.
The appellant claims that this fact is amply borne out from the various letters written by respondent No.1 to the appellant wherein respondent No.1 claims to have delivered one lakh shares to its Bombay office and the remaining one lakh shares allegedly to a broker one Mr. Hiten Dalal.
It was further claimed that according to the statement of account of the appellant as on 31.7.1993 an amount of Rs.3,18,06,868/ is due to the appellant from respondent No.1.
The running account maintained by respondent No.1 shows a sum of Rs.2,53,75,000/ as due from the appellant on 31.3.1993.
On behalf of the appellant one witness has been examined.
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for interest at the rate of 24 per annum?
A perusal of the letter dated 27.5.1993, which companytains a statement of account with the subject settlement of outstanding clearly shows that the respondent No.1 is claiming a sum of Rs.2,56,25,000/ as outstanding against the appellant from various transactions as per the details given therein.
The averments made in paragraph 1 to paragraph 6 of the plaint were admitted by the respondents.
Respondent No.1, Can Bank Financial Services Limited, had opposed the claim and also lodged a companynter claim, claim and decree in the amount of Rs.2,53,75,000/ from the appellant with interest w.e.f.
Hence the companynter claim had been preferred in the written statement itself.
Whether Defendant No.1 by its letter dated 17.9.1992 has resiled from its companytractual obligations as alleged in para 8b vi of the Plaint?
Therefore, the appellant companyld number possibly claim anything against the aforesaid SAIL shares on account of any difference in the companytracted rate and the rate when the same were listed on the Delhi Stock Exchange.
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for a decree or Rs.3,18,08,868/ ?
The appellant states that on inquiry Mr. Dalal has sated that numbersuch shares had been delivered on behalf of respondent No.1.
Against the aforesaid companytract, the delivery of one lakh shares was made by the respondent No.1 to the appellant on 22.4.1992.
Respondent No.1 in his written statement took a preliminary objection stating that the suit is wholly misconceived and a fictitious claim has been put forward solely with the intention of delaying or avoiding payment of a sum of Rs.2,53,75,000/ and interest thereon to the answering respondent No.1.
Herein, the appellant states that the credit claimed by the respondent No.1 should be Rs.2,21,00,000/ instead of Rs.2,56,25,000/ .
This balance was claimed by the appellant on the ground that the credit claimed by respondent No.1 of Rs.3,75,00,000/ has to be reduced by Rs.1,56,00,000/ i.e. the difference in price of shares of the two companytracts dated 14.2.1992 and 23.3.1992.
Against companytract numbere dated 14.02.1992 Rs.1,54,000/ was credited to the account of respondent No.1 but the respondent No.1 reiterated its stand in the letter dated 17.9.1992.
Therefore, a decree in an amount of Rs.2,53,75,000/ with an interest at the rate of 12 per annum from 22.4.1992 till the date of realisation is passed against the appellant.
By letter dated 14.06.1993 the appellant informed the respondent No.1 that after reconciliation of the account, the appellant was liable to be paid by respondent No.1 an amount of Rs.2,59,75,000/ .
The appellant claims to be a stock broker, being a sole proprietory companycern of Mr. Naresh K. Aggarwala.
The difference of amount of Rs.2,21,00,000/ was claimed as the amount due from the appellant to the respondent No.1.
The respondent No.1 had clearly requested the appellant to settle account by paying Rs.2,56,25,000/ immediately.
In the plaint it was averred that of the two lakh RIL shares purchased by the appellant only one lakh shares were delivered by respondent No.1.
The appellant had prayed for a decree against respondent No.1 in respect of net amount payable arising out of two sets of transactions in shares i.e. i two transactions in the shares of Reliance Industries Limited RIL ii one transaction in respect of Steel Authority of India Limited SAIL .
It was also averred that in spite of assurances having been given by respondent No.1 from time to time, the balance one lakh shares were number delivered.
The respondent No.1 had based the companynter claim on the difference of price in shares between two periods of companytract i.e. 14.2.1992 and 23.3.1992.
Therefore appellant asked the respondent No.1 to credit Rs.
In this letter the appellant reiterated that one lakh shares only had been delivered and numberother delivery had been made in respect of Reliance shares.
The market rate, according to the appellant, on 27.7.1992 was Rs.130 per share.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This Statutory First Appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court Trial of offences relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992 in short the Special Court Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2004 passed by the Special Court at Bombay in Suit No.4 of 1998.
It is claimed that on 14.2.1992 a companytract was entered into between the appellant and Can Bank for purchase of one lakh shares of RIL at a price of Rs.154 per share inclusive of all charges.
The appellant therefore by letter dated 19.09.1992 once again requested for the companyperation of the respondents as the delivery had to be effected within reasonable period of time to avoid substantial losses.
The appellant further stated that on 27.05.1993 respondent No.1 issued a numberice demanding an amount of Rs.2,56,25,000/ on the basis of account maintained up to 08/02/1992.
It was also stated that Mr. Hiten P. Dalal had companyfirmed that he had number given any Reliance shares on account of respondent No.1 to the appellant.
It is further held that the transaction dated 27.2.1992 was illegal and therefore is number capable of being enforced.
