THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED Vs. ANURADHA MALIK
LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-72
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 12,2016

The Calcutta Stock Exchange Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Anuradha Malik Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The plaintiff as a stock exchange has sought to recover amounts of default from the defendant as its member along with interest thereon. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to honour its obligations under three settlements, namely, 20001148, 20001149 and 20001150.
(2.) The defendant has filed a written statement along with a counter claim. According to the defendant, the plaintiff ought not to have stopped the trading facilities of the defendant. In any event, the plaintiff ought to have sold the shares held as securities on March 9, 2001. Taking the value of the securities available with the plaintiff on account of the defendant as at March 9, 2001 and adjusting the same against the liabilities of the defendant, the plaintiff is liable to pay the defendant. The defendant claims such sum along with interest from the plaintiff in its counter claim.
(3.) The plaintiff has filed an additional written statement denying the claims made by the defendant in the counter claim. Eight issues were settled by the Order dated February 24, 2016. Such issues are as follows: - 1) Is the plaintiff entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 60,56,843.41 ? 2) Did or could the defendant have any obligation towards the plaintiff in respect of settlement numbers 2001141 and 2001150 as alleged in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the plaint ? 3) Was the plaintiff obliged to square -off all outstanding trades on 9th March, 2001, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the Written Statement ? 4) Could not the plaintiff square -off all the outstandings in the name of the defendant and adjust the securities including Temporary Cash Margin of Rs. 62,01,000/ - and the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 15,00,000/ - on 9th March, 2001, as alleged in paragraph 27 of the Additional Written Statement of the plaintiff ? 5) Did the plaintiff, in accordance with its rules, bye -laws and regulations, pay any amount to any other recipient member as alleged in paragraph 21 of the plaint ? 6) Is the plaintiff entitled to any interest as claimed ? 7) What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to ? 8) What relief, if any, is the defendant entitled to ? In support of its claim the plaintiff has disclosed various documents. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses. The defendant has disclosed various documents. The defendant has produced herself as the sole witness. Mr. Moloy Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendant in its pleading as well as in his oral evidence has admitted that she was a defaulter in respect of the three settlements bearing nos. 20001148, 20001149 and 20001150. The net amounts payable in respect of the three settlements have been admitted by the defendant. What the defendant disputes, is the adjustment given by the plaintiff in respect of the sale of shares held as securities on account of the defendant. A member of a stock exchange is required to furnish margin money. In the present case the defendant had furnished margin money in the nature of cash deposits, fixed deposits, bank guarantee as well as shares. These securities were adjusted by the plaintiff on the failure of the defendant to honour her obligations in respect of the three settlement accounts. She was declared as a defaulter. Upon her being declared as a defaulter and prior to the Default Settlement Account available with the plaintiff being availed of by the plaintiff, the shares of the defendant were sold. Such sale had happened in April 2001. The defendant was given credit for the value of the shares sold in April 2001. Referring to the annexure to the plaint it has been submitted that, the defendant has been given due credit of all the adjustments that she is entitled to. After giving such adjustments, Rs.60,56,843.41p. has become due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 2.5% per month as prescribed by the bye -laws of the Calcutta Stock Exchange. The bye -laws are binding agreements between the member and the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay such agreed rate of interest, at least up to the date of filing of the suit. For the period after the filing of the suit, the Court may at its discretion award interest at such rate to the plaintiff as deemed proper.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.