HIRALAL THAKOREDAS PAREKH Vs. CHHOTALAL MULCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sues the defendant on a promissory note dated January 14, 1928, for a sum of Rs. 9,000 odd. The promissory note is Exhibit A, and it is given by the defendant to one Vajifdar, by whom it was endorsed, in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The defence of the defendant is that the promissory note was given in respect of the balance due by the defendant to Vajifdar in respect of transactions carried out by the latter on the Native Share & Stock Exchange, and he says that those contracts under the rules of the Exchange were void, and consequently, no action will lie on a promissory note given in respect of that consideration. He further says that the plaintiff was at all material times a clerk of Vajifdar and knew the nature of the transactions between Vajifdar and the defendant, and knew that those transactions were invalid, and, therefore, the plaintiff is not a holder in due course,

(3.) The first question to determine is whet her there is any invalidity in the promissory note, having regard to the transactions on the Native Share & Stock Exchange,