NANDA LAL ROY Vs. GURUPADA HALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who describes himself as a dealer and broker in stocks and shares, sues to recover the sum of Rs. 40,875 as damages suffered by him in his firm of N.L. Roy & Co., by reason of the defendant having neglected and ?failed to deliver certain shares which he agreed to sell to the plaintiff. In the first paragraph of the plaint the plaintiff alleges that between the 7 August and 13 September, 1919, the defendant entered into various contracts with him in his firm of N.L. Roy & Co. by which the defendant agreed to sell various lots of shares in limited companies at various rates. A statement is annexed to the plaint giving particulars of the contracts and a specimen form of the contract in suit is attached. The plaintiff further pleads that the time for delivery of the shares was extended by mutual agreement to the 16th October, 1919, and that on that date he made a tender of the price, and thereupon, the defendant having failed and neglected to deliver the shares although the plaintiff had offered to pay for them, the plaintiff alleges that in accordance with the custom of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association he bought against the defendant. He alleges that he has sustained damages in the amount already stated.

(2.) The defendant pleads that the contracts were gambling transactions. The plea of wagering has been abandoned and nothing was said about it at the hearing. He denies the alleged extension or that the plaintiff has sustained any damages. At a comparatively recent date the written statement was amended, and by the amendment the defendant pleads that though the plaintiff entered into the contracts in the character of agent or broker for an undisclosed principal, in reality there was no principal. When the amendment was allowed, I was told that the plaintiff proposed to rely upon usage in answer to the plea. According to the system of pleading in vogue in this country, there is no reply and consequently to avoid all ambiguity, when I allowed the amendment to be made, I directed that an additional written statement should be filed on behalf of the plaintiff by way of reply which has been done.

(3.) The following issues were submitted on behalf of the defendant and accepted: i. Was there an extension of time as regards the due dates for delivery of the shares in suit from time to time by mutual consent as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint? ii. If not, what were the due dates under the contract in suit? (Note. - Mr. Pugh says that he does not rely on custom on this part of the case.) iii. In what character were the contracts in suit entered into by the plaintiff? iv. If the defendant entered into the contracts with the plaintiff in the character of agent, (a) was the plaintiff acting in reality on his own account, (b) is the plaintiff entitled to any indemnity? V/s. Is there a custom as alleged in paragraph 2 of the additional written statement? Is evidence thereof admissible? vi. Is there a custom to pay interest at 12 per cent, per annum? vii. To what damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?