Costs of Rs, 27.87,000 were also awarded.
According to the said bankers receipts the units were to be delivered by the appellant to the respondent against the discharge in the said receipts.
Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent paid Rs.
134.42 crores by 3rd July, 1992.
No amount was paid by the appellant, whereupon the respondent filed a suit inter alia claiming the delivery of the units in respect of which the payment had been made.
As already indicated herein above by the impugned judgment dated llth March, 1996 the Special Court, Bombay granted the relief of specific performance which required the appellant to buy 7.5 companye units for which payment had been made and in addition thereto it was also required to purchase and sell to the respondent the units representing the right issue which the respondent was deprived of availing of because of the number delivery of the units.
53 dated 10th September, 1991 and the other being No 81 dated 23rd October, 1991.
An alternative prayer which was made was for damages for a sum of Rs.
Prior to the issuance of this letter, companyrespondence between the parties showed that the appellant was promising to give the delivery of the units but by this letter of 1st July, 1992 the respondents claimed companypensation as calculated in the annexure to this letter.
13 41p.
2001 3 SCR 236 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KIRPAL J. This is an appeal filed against the judgment of the Special Court companystituted under the Special Court Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992 whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and it was inter alia ordered that the appellant herein should purchase units which had been agreed to be sold to the respondent and deliver the same to it.
249,19,00,549 plus further interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent per annum on the said sum till the date of payment.
The companyputation of the claim was given according to which the respondent treated the breach of the companytract to have taken place on 30th May, 1992 and on that basis it claimed difference in price between the rate what was paid and the rate of the Unit Trust of India as on 30th of May, 1992.
per unit Subsequently, on 23rd October, 1991 it paid further sum of Rs 75,83,12,500 as companysideration for the purchase of 5.50 crore units at the rate of Rs 13.7875 per unit In respect of the aforesaid two transactions the appellant issued to the respondent two bankers receipts one bearing No.
It is an admitted case of the parties that the units in respect of which payment was received by the appellant were never delivered to the respondent Considerable companyrespondence was exchanged between the parties but what is of relevance is a letter dated 1st July, 1992 whereby the respondent asked the appellant to pay to it a sum of Rs.
It was further stated that any delay in payment would then attract interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum or call money rate whichever was higher.
26,82,00,000 to the appellant on 10th September, 1991 for purchase of 2 crore units of the Unit Trust of India at the rate of Rs.
Hence this appeal.
