Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Calcutta Stock Exchange Versus BLB Limited

2015 (12) TMI 780 - SUPREME COURT

Relevancy of documents summoned - the award was passed in violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch - in the month of March 2001, the Stock Market all over the country had crashed and as a consequence certain members of the defendant who were required to make payment to the defendant (petitioner) were failing to discharge their obligation to the defendant from Settlement No.2001148 onwards. - Held that:- In the instant case, the order of the Joint Registrar which was confirmed by the le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase, we have meticulously examined the written statement. We are satisfied that the matter does not call for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136. Any further elaboration of the reasons for our satisfaction could have adverse impact on the case. Therefore, we desist. Special Leave Petition is dismissed. - Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36711 of 2014 - Dated:- 11-12-2015 - J. Chelameswar And Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J. 1. This special leave peti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uted 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 Cour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Side) Rules, 1967 by an order dated 06.12.2012. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2012, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of Chamber Appeal (O.A. No.11 of 2013) under Rule 4 read with Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 unsuccessfully. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.11.2014. 5. It appears, in the month of March 2001, the Stock Market all over the country had crashed and as a consequence certain members of the defendant who we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shortfall from all the members proportionately but realized that it was not possible, therefore, according to the plaintiff, the petitioner called a meeting of a few financially 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 dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not acceded to this mode/option of dealing with the crisis. Para 23 of the Plaint 7. Eventually, an amount of ₹ 8,76,89,708/- was paid by the plaintiff which according to averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is under no legal obligation to pay. According to the plaintiff, the said amount was paid under protest. The relevant part of the plaint reads as follows: While issuing the second cheque of ₹ 1,89,708/- dated 23.03.2001 it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o refund the same as and when the same is recovered from the defaulting members and or out of the funds being collected in the Settlement Guarantee Fund or through any other mode. Para 28 of the Plaint 8. It is further the case of the plaintiff that thereafter repeated requests, both oral and in writing, were made to the petitioner for refund of the said amount. Since the petitioner did not make the payment, civil suit (No.272 of 2004) came to be filed. 9. In the said suit, the petitioner herein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pany) 4764/23A, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi to produce the following records regarding the business transaction at Calcutta Stock Exchange, Kolkata for the period from 01.04.2000 to 30.04.2001: I. General Ledger, Party Ledger and Member s Ledge from 01.04.2000 to 31.04.2001. II. Settlement wise Daily Transaction Report, C Form, Balance Sheet, Delivery Statement, Auction Report from 01.09.2000 to 31.04.2001. III. Sauda Books, Documents Register (should include particulars of shares and sec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontract Notes issued to clients from 01.09.2000 to 31.04.2001. VII. Written consent of clients in case of transactions done on principal to principal basis from 01.04.2000 to 31.05.2001. VIII. Documents/Delivery Register, settlement wise delivery statement, indicating clearly the following whether shares having mark to market loss, against which temporary reprieve has been claimed by members in a settlement, from payment of MTM margin money shortfall, have been actually delivered at the end of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly 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 during the 2 years 1991-2001 is given. The said application was dismissed by the Joint Registra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ertain documents mentioned in certain letters Para No.2. In IA No.5120/2007, a prayer is made that the direction be issued to the plaintiff to disclose all the documents mentioned in the letters dated 14th August, 2003, 26th September, 2003 and 3rd November, 2003 and in failure to comply with the said requirements, the suit shall be dismissed and in the meanwhile, further proceedings in the suit shall be stayed.. 12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while dismissing the said I.A. held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rwise 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) tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ments sought to be produced were not relevant for the adjudication of the suit and the order was also upheld by the Hon ble Division Bench, the issue of relevance cannot be reopened by the Joint Registrar. 14. In the appeal against the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Joint Registrar, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by impugned order recorded various reasons for not interfering with the order of the Joint Registrar Para 10. (a) Firstly, it appears that the present suit is a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of the letters issued by the defendant has already been stayed by the Calcutta High Court. (c) It is also a matter of fact that under Order 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 ot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version