MADAN LAL JAGGI Vs. PRABHAT TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint which has given rise to this appeal, was filed by Mr. Prabhat Tyagi, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, against the appellant, Mr M. L. Jaggi and another alleging that he had been selling and purchasing shares of various companies through the appellant, M. L. Jaggi, who was working as a sub-broker affiliated with M/s. M. P. Soni and Co. , opposite party 2, who was a member of Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. During the period from 31.1.92 to 2.4.92, the complainant purchased equity shares as per details mentioned in the complaint, the net rate including the commission chargeable by the opposite parties. The complainant made payment through account payee cheque' as per details mentioned in para 4 of the complaint in favour of opposite party 1. The payment included the commission. On 1.4.92, opposite party delivered the shares detailed in para 5 of the complaint. On further persuasion, he delivered some more shares detailed in para 6 of the complaint and promised to deliver the remaining shares but later on his intentions turned dishonest and he neither delivered the remaining shares as detailed at Serial No.5 to 8 of the table given in para 5 of the complaint nor returned the money which he had received towards the price thereof.

(2.) The second grievance of the complainant was that the shares which had been delivered to the complainant included one lot of 50 ordinary shares of TISCO. They were sent to the company for being transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant was informed by the company that the signatures of the second transferor differed from the specimen signatures as per their record and they could not be transferred in his name. The complainant approached opposite party 1 to have the transfer deeds duly signed by the transferor but to no effect. As a result of the above, the complainant had suffered various losses which were quantified and the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.58,809/-alongwith interest @ 24% p. a.

(3.) The complaint was contested on behalf of both the opposite parties. Various objections regarding maintainability of the complaint were raised. The objections were disposed of by District Forum II by its order dated 24.3.94. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complaint was maintainable and fixed the case for final arguments. Aggrieved by the order, opposite party 1 has preferred this revision.