BEDA NAND CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two of the respondents to a writ petition disposed of by an order dated July 5, 1999 have applied for recalling the order on the ground that they had been misled into conceding to the arrangement recorded in the order. The National Securities Clearing Corporation Limited and the National Stock Exchange of India. Limited (NSE) claim that a fraudulent petitioner had deceived the applicants into believing that a particular state of affairs existed when subsequent disclosure by the petitioner in terms of the order showed otherwise.

(2.) WPNo.2098 of 1998 was brought with a grievance that the NSE had played spoilsport in the petitioner exercising all rights in respect of 400 equity shares of and in ITC Limited to which the petitioner was beneficially entitled. The petitioner claimed that the petitioner had caused certain shares in the relevant company to be purchased through the respondent No. 5 broker company which was run and controlled by the respondent No. 6 individual. The petition spoke of a purchase of 400 shares in the company from the NSE with which the broker was registered, against full payment of the market price thereof which had been tendered by the broker to the second respondent clearing house of the NSE. The petition proceeded to narrate that upon such 400 shares being sent to the company for registration of the transfer, 100 shares were returned on account of the transferor's signature not tallying, These 100 shares, according to the petition, were returned to the broker for replacement and were lodged with the applicants herein in October, 1997. The petitioner said that a further 300 shares in the same company were purchased by him through the broker and returned by the company on account of bad delivery, whereupon the petitioner sought replacement thereof from the NSE through the registered broker. The grievance in the petition was that such 400 shares in ITC Limited that had been duly deposited by the broker for replacement or rectification had not been returned after correction nor replaced by the applicants herein.

(3.) The applicants herein used an affidavit in the proceedings pleading therein that the writ petition was not maintainable against them as they did not answer to the description of State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. On merits, the applicants' affidavit said that the petitioner was a rank stranger to the applicants as there was no privity of contract with the petitioner. It was incidentally mentioned (at paragraph 3 of the affidavit) that the respondent No. 5 had defaulted in settlement of dues and in maintaining the security deposit consequent whereupon, as at the close of financial year 1998-99, there was an amount of Rs. 1,88,44,221.01 p due to the applicants from the broker in addition to unrectified bad delivery of shares of value of Rs. 55,74,654/-