P L SP NK NAGAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. VEEYARES AND CO
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
VEEYARES AND CO.BY ITS SOLE-PROPRIETOR, NL.VR.VR
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajagopalan, J. -
(1.) The proprietors of the plaintiff firm described it as a firm of stock and share brokers. His place of business was Devakottah. In para 4 of his written statement the defendant contended that the plaintiff was both a broker and a dealer in shares. The defendant did not challenge the correctness of the plaintiff's description of the defendant as a dealer in shares. The defendant was also a resident of Devakottah. Both parties agreed that transactions between them in purchase and sale of shares commenced on 7-6-1945. The plaintiff claimed that the transactions between himself and the defendant formed the basis of an open, mutual and current account between them. The plaintiff's claim in the suit was for the amount due to him on an account stated to the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed.
(2.) Though the appeal was against the decree as a whole, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to four sets of transactions. He explained that the liability the plaintiff sought to enforce on the defendant under these four sets of transactions more than covered the amount decreed.
(3.) The genuineness of the contracts evidenced by Exs. B. 1 to B. 4 was not in dispute. Ex. B. 1 was on 7-11-1945 under which the defendant sold 200 steel Corporation shares at Rs. 36-11-0 a share. The contract number was 1031. Contract No. 1067 evidenced by Ex. B. 2 was on 13-11-1945, for sale by the defendant of 100 more Steel Corporation shares, at the same price Rs. 36-11-0 a share. Under contract number 1066, Ex. B. 3 dated 13-11-1945, the defendant sold 100 Indian Iron shares at Rs. 41-8-0 a share. The fourth contract, Ex. B. 4, No. 1094, was on 24-11-1945, for the sale by the defendant of 100 more Indian Irons at Rs. 42-9-0 a share. Ex. B. 1 recorded that the delivery of the shares was subject to the rules and usages of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The date of the contract was 7-11-1945 and the date of settlement was shown in Ex. B. 1 as 13-11-1945. The other three contracts, Ex. B. 2, B. 3 and B. 4 were for delivery under the rules etc of the Calcutta Stock exchange. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a member of either of the Stock Exchanges at Bombay and at Calcutta.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.