R ARIF Vs. KARVY STOCK BROKING LIMITED REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT AND DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY S RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant, who has suffered a a decree before the Courts below in a suit filed for recovery of money, is the appellant herein and he has filed the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff is the company incorporated under the Companies Act, apart from being a member of National Stock Exchange of India Limited, carrying on business in stock broking. On the application of the appellant/defendant dated 06.03.2004, pursuant to the agreement signed by him on the same day, he was given a membership bearing Client Code No.246SA0845. According to the respondent/plaintiff, in the account maintained by it qua the appellant/defendant, a sum of Rs.1,79,673.93 is due and after issuance of legal notice followed by the reply given, the suit has been laid. A defence has been taken by the appellant/defendant interalia contending that his signature has been used in the documents created for the aforesaid purpose. The trial Court, placing reliance upon Ex.A5, which is a letter signed by the appellant/defendant, acknowledging the factum of payment, decreed the suit. Before the lower appellate Court, the appellant/defendant has raised a doubt on the discrepancies qua the dates mentioned in Exs.A2 and A3. Ex.A2 is the notarised copy of the power of attorney. Ex.A3 is the agreement inter se parties.

(3.) The lower appellate Court rejected the abovesaid contention on the ground that there is no discrepancy in Ex.A2. It has been attested by a notary. The alleged discrepancy has been explained by the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, Ex.A2 is the pre-existing power of attorney in the name of the same person. Similarly, Ex.A3 has been accepted, as even without the same, the appellant/defendant has admitted doing business in stock and shares through the respondent/plaintiff. Incidentally, reliance has been made on Exs.A4 and A5.