9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shares of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. in the year 1987. Accordingly, Sifcon purchased 200 shares for the complainants. Each share was for the amount of Rs. 304 as on 2-11-1987. The complainants further alleged that Sifcon charged in each transaction the brokerage and registration fees, etc. and issued the bill in favour of Ashok Daga who acted on behalf of the complainants for the purpose of purchasing the shares. The consideration for the purchase of the shares was paid by the complainants, to opposite party No. 1. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 purchased 200 shares of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. for the complain- ants, for which the whole consideration has been paid to the opposite party No. 1 by and on behalf of the complainants. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te parties. However, none appeared for the opposite parties on the appointed date of 4-11-1992. Other notices were issued on 5-11-1992 directing the opposite parties to appear on 11-2-1992. However, the opposite parties again remained absent and, therefore, the complainants made an application on 4-2-1993 under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for effecting the service on opposite party by publication in the newspaper. Again notice was published in the newspapers for servicing the opposite party. How-ever, despite this circumstance, the opposite party remained absent. Thereafter, the complaint was further adjourned on three occasions and ultimately we proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties, on 3-8-1984. The co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing of this complaint. Thus, it is apparent that the complainants suffered the total loss of shares of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. The complainants had claimed Rs. 7,28,500 towards the value of Associated Cement Company shares. The complainants had stated in the complaint that the value of Associated Cement Company shares as on 7-2-1992 was Rs. 470. Thus, it is proved that the complainants were put to loss of Rs. 7,28,500. The aforesaid loss has been caused to the complainants due to the deficien- cies in the service of share-broker, viz., opposite party No. 1 as a result of negligence. The complainants are, therefore, entitled to receive the compensation of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,28,500 from opposite party No.1. We, therefore, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
