9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h its Senior Manager, Sandeep Aggarwal (defendant No. 2) is illegal, null, void and vitiated by malice. They have also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from taking any steps pursuant to the said letter. Along with the suit they have moved an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for an ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from taking any action pursuant to the letter referred to above till the disposal of the suit. It is this application which has led to this order. 2. Summons in the suit and notice of the application had been issued to the defendants for 29-9-1995. On that day, appearance was put in on behalf of defendant No. 4. The other de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantly making complaints to defendant No. 1 with regard to its claim as against the plaintiff-firm. It appears that upon those complaints a special audit was conducted by defendant No. 1 and consequent upon that special audit, the letter of 21-9-1995, was issued. It is this letter which is at the centre stage of this dispute. The relevant portion of this letter runs as under: "You have also not shown these transactions in the subsequent periods and have not reported this to the exchange contrary to the exchange by laws and regulations. The inspection reveals that a sum of Rs. 31,45,199 as claimed by Jain Co. is due and payable by you to them. In accordance with the procedure of the exchange based on the inspection report and your own b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is actually payable? That finding can come only after resort is had to article 127. Since the claim has not been adjudicated upon, defendant No. 1 would not, prima facie, be justified in having recourse to article 99E, on the basis of the non-admitted claim of defendant No. 4. But then, this is not the end of the matter. In the letter reproduced above action is proposed to be taken on yet another ground and it is that the plaintiff firm had not shown the transactions in the subsequent period and had also failed to report this to defendant No. 1 exchange. If the plaintiffs have really not reported about this transaction then they seem to have violated bye-laws 350( xii ). I feel, therefore, that whereas, prima facie, penal action cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
