9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al who is her sole legal representative was already on record as respondent No. 6 in the case. Mr. Madhusudan Upadhyay, respondent No. 3 also died during the proceedings and his legal representatives were impleaded in accordance with our Order dated 18-3-1996. 2. The brief facts of this case are that Smt. Kaushalya Devi, the appellant, sold 200 shares of Hindustan Levers Ltd. to the respondent Shri D.N. Aggarwal at the rate of Rs. 140 per share on 28-6-1991 for a sum of Rs. 28,700,100 shares were delivered on 28-6-1991 itself and the remain- ing 100 shares were to be delivered on the encashment of the cheque. Shri D.N. Aggarwal, who bought these shares, sold them to another person through Gupta Associates, Share Brokers. He, however, ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without bonus and dividend rights. In support of this view the State Commission has quoted a receipt signed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi, the petitioner and witnessed by Smt. Veena Sarpal, her daughter. The receipt reads as follows : "I, Kaushalya Devi Marwah, W/o late Shri Hira Lai Marwah, r/o 5/50, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi received a sum of Rs. 28,700 from Mrs. Sunita Aggarwal, r/o 1-146 Ashok Vihar, Delhi vide Pay Order No . for Rs. 15,800 and Rs. 12,900 as a full and final consideration of the following shares of Hindustan Lever Ltd. The Pay Order drawn on and by Bank of Baroda. L.F. Distinctive No. Share Certificate Number No. of Shares H.L.K.O./ 25630 31746444 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rather than through a stock broker which takes more than a month. Accordingly, the State Commission set aside the Order of the District Forum and directed the late Smt. Kaushalya Devi to pay Rs. 23,598.50 along with 12 per cent interest per annum to the respondent, Shri D.N. Aggarwal. 4. We have gone through the records of this case and heard the learned Counsel on both sides. We do not find any error of law or of jurisdiction in the order of the State Commission, nor we consider their appreciation of facts to be wrong. However, we find that the date from which interest is to be calculated has not been specifically mentioned in the Order of the State Commission specifically so as to remove any confusion in this regard. It may be noted h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
