9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change" means - (a) anybody of individuals, whether incorporated or not, constituted before corporatisation and demutualization under sections 4A and 4B, or (b) a body corporate incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), whether under a scheme of corporatisation and demutualization or otherwise, for the purpose of assisting, regulating or controlling the business of buying, selling or dealing in securities. of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. 3. The respondent instituted Original Suit being C.S. (O.S.) No.272 of 2004 on the file of the High Court of Delhi praying for a decree for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,89,86,525/- along with interest etc. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed an Interloc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancially sound members of the Exchange including the plaintiff. The relevant part of the plaint reads as follows: "Thereafter Defendant called a meeting of a few financial sound members of the Exchange including the Plaintiff wherein various options to deal with the crisis were discussed out of which one option reposed by the deponent was to reverse the transactions of Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd. and DSQ Software of all those members, who had a net delivery position in Settlement No.2001148 of more than 1,00,000 shares. The Defendant then showed a draft letter dated 22.03.2001 to the Plaintiff and others present at separate meetings and arbitrarily accused the members including the Plaintiff of collusive transactions and inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit (No.272 of 2004) came to be filed. 9. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed Interlocutory Application No.6903 of 2012 praying as follows: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court is prayed to: (a) allow the application for summoning record of the business transaction of the plaintiff company mentioned in para no.2; (b) pass any order and/or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper of the facts of the case." In para no.2 of the said application, list of documents Para 2. The concerned official from the BLB Ltd. (Plaintiff's company) 4764/23A, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi to produce the following records regarding the business transaction at Calcutta Stock Exchange, K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.09.2000 to 31.04.2001. X. Produce the following: Business Volume handled by you in the following format: (a) Dealings in top 20 securities in descending order of volume. (b) Dealings with top 20 brokers so far as off market deals are concerned in descending order of volume from 01.09.2000 to 30.04.2001. (c) List of top 20 clients separately in terms of number of transactions and the value of transactions from 01.09.2000 to 30.04.2001. (d) List of top 20 clients separately in terms of number of transactions and the value of transactions as far as off market transactions are concerned from 01.09.2000 to 30.04.2001. (e) Details of defaults in payment/delivery in 2 years 1999-2001. (f) Fund borrowed if any on short term or long term basis d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in this regard has been framed. The application by the defendant under Section 151 of the CPC is otherwise belated which has been filed when the part cross-examination of plaintiff is already recorded. In case the defendant wishes to prove his case on the basis of these documents, the defendant is at liberty to summon the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the application being I.A. No.5120 of 2007 is totally misconceived and is not maintainable and it appears to have been filed to delay progress of the suit." 13. It appears from the order of the Joint Registrar dated 06.12.2012 (supra) that the order dated 19.01.2009 (supra) of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by a Division Bench by its order dated 03.03.2009. The Joint Regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the impugned order is not an appealable order. Order XLIII CPC does not contemplate an appeal against the order passed in application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. (d) It also appears from the record that the defendant has attempted on many dates to delay the completion of the trial on one pretext or the other. The suit filed by the plaintiff is merely a suit for recovery of the amount. The said fact has not been denied. The said documents cannot be summoned from the plaintiff at the time of cross examination of the defendant's witnesses. It is evident that those documents are actually required by the defendant for pending investigation for the purposes of collateral proceedings. 15. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
