LAWS(CAL)-1953-12-2

SOHANLAL PACHISIA AND CO Vs. BILASRAY KHEMANI

Decided On December 11, 1953
SOHANLAL PACHISIA Appellant
V/S
BILASRAY KHEMANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,437/12/3 for damages suffered by the plaintiffs in respect of certain dealings and transactions in shares they had with the defendants and in the alternative for enquiry into damages.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff firm is that on or about the 29th November 1944 (wrongly stated as 25th November) the defendants sold and the plaintiff firm purchased from the defendants 4,000 ordinary shares of Barakar Coal Co. Ltd. The said transaction was subject to the rules and usages of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. According to the rule and usage, the defendants were to deliver the shares and the plaintiff firm was to pay for the same within 3 days from the date of the contract. The contract relating to the transaction was numbered 499 and dated the 29th November 1944. The time for delivery was however extended from time to time by mutual agreement up to 20th December 1944. But although the plaintiff firm applied for delivery, the shares were not delivered by the defendants. By reason of such failure to give delivery, the plaintiff firm, on 21st December 1944 purchased the said 4,000 shares in open market for and on account of and at the risk of the defendants and thereby suffered a loss of Rs. 13,862/8/- being the difference between the price at which the plaintiff firm purchased the shares from the defendants and the price at which the plaintiff firm was compelled to buy the said shares from the market on account of the defendants. The particulars of such damages are set out in paragraph 12 of the plaint. The defendants in their firm of "Bilasray Khe-mani" had drawn and made over to the plaintiff firm a post dated cheque for Rs. 7,237/87- bearing date 1st January 1945 by way of marginal security for the fulfilment of the said contract but the cheque was dishonoured by non-payment on presentation to the bank.

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement. The defendants 3 and 4 have together filed a separate written statement.