PROMATHA NATH MULLICK Vs. BATLIWALLA AND KARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia decreeing the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant for Rs. 10,837-8-0. The plaintiffs are certified share, stock and exchange brokers in the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association of Bombay. The defendant is a constituent of the plaintiffs and lives in Calcutta. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover this amount of Rs. 10,837-8-0 from the defendant in respect of certain transactions in shares effected by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of the defendant on the Stock Exchange in Bombay. The defendant filed a written statement raising a large number of defences, and the learned Judge decided against the defendant on all those defences.

(2.) THE first question raised before us by Mr. Munshi the learned counsel for the defendant, is that the plaint as originally filed disclosed no cause of action. On July 4, 1941, an order was obtained by the plaintiffs from the learned Judge granting them leave to amend the plaint. THE plaint was amended accordingly by adding paragraph 8A to the plaint, which is in these terms : All the aforesaid transactions were effected by the plaintiffs according to the rules and regulations of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association, Bombay.

(3.) THE averment in the plaint, whether implied from the statement contained in paragraph 1 of the plaint or by virtue of the amendment of the plaint, that the plaintiffs effected transactions on behalf of the defendant according to the rules and regulations of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association, is sufficient to show that the plaintiffs as agents effected transactions on behalf of the defendant and in respect of the losses or profits in respect of those transactions they were responsible, and the profits and losses were, received or paid by the plaintiffs when the transactions of the particular settlement went through the Clearing House of the Native Share, and Stock Brokers' Association, Bombay. In the case of share brokers in Bombay they submit their statements in respect of their transactions for a particular settlement to the Clearing House of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association. THEse transactions are with various brokers. THE results of all these transactions arc ascertained by the Clearing House, and the brokers arc made to pay if there is a deficit on the whole statement for the settlement, and the payment is made by the share brokers. If there is a balance payable to the brokers in respect of all the transactions, that amount is allowed to them, and they receive the payment which is made by various brokers with whom they had the transactions. Thus in the case of share brokers it would be difficult for them to state in the case of a particular constituent that they paid the lessee incurred in respect of his transactions, because payment is not made in respect of the "transactions of each constituent, but all the transactions of all the constituents with "different brokers arc settled in account with all the brokers through the Clearing House, In my judgment the plaint discloses a good and complete cause of action.