18,59,71,808.22 was issued by Plaintiffs on behalf of CMF as alleged in para 8 of Written Statement?
Although defendant number 1 admits that broker had informed him that the pay order dated 24th of June, 1991 was issued on account of plaintiff, the said payment had been made by it with a clear understanding and arrangement between the plaintiff and the Canbank Mutual Fund that the bonds would be delivered by Canbank Mutual Fund to the plaintiff on account of the money having been paid by the plaintiff to said defendant.
11 of 2002 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs.
2214 promising to deliver securities purchased by the plaintiff from the Canbank Mutual Fund.
Therefore, according to defendant number 1, the liability to deliver the securities to the plaintiff is that of Canbank Mutual Fund and number of defendant number It is the case of defendant number 1 that there was numbertransaction between it and plaintiff for purchase of any securities on 24th of June, 1991.
2214 issued by Canbank Mutual Fund from defendant number 1 and handed over that receipt to Canbank Mutual Fund.
18,59,71,808.22/ along with interest at the rate of 15 has preferred this appeal.
The plea of defendant number 1 further is that on 24th of June, 1991 it sold the same securities to Canbank Mutual Fund and in companysideration, received a cheque from Canara Bank for Rs.
It is claimed by defendant number 1 that for transaction dated 24th of June, 1991 the broker has issued a companytract numbere to defendant number 1 who by letter dated 30th of October, 1992 companyfirmed that he had received the bank receipt No.
18,59,71,808/ specifically mentioning that the pay order is on account of the plaintiff Canbank Financial Services Ltd. The plaintiffs case further is that during the reconciliation of the securities account in or about September, 1994, the plaintiff found that the Coal India bonds purchased by it from defendant number 1 on 24th of June, 1991 have number been received by them.
On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, the trial companyrt recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved that on 24th of June, 1991 it had bought the securities through the broker Naresh K. Aggarwala.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
Accordingly, plaintiff wrote a letter dated 1st of October, 1992 to defendant number 1 for delivery of the bonds or to refund the amount paid by it.
1, the Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., a Company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30th of June, 2004 passed by the Special Court Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities , Bombay in Suit No.
PRASAD,J. Defendant No.
