9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and it was, inter alia, ordered that the appellant herein should purchase units which had been agreed to be sold to the respondent and deliver the same to it. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent paid Rs. 26,82,00,000 to the appellant on September 10, 1991, for purchase of 2 crore units of the Unit Trust of India at the rate of Rs. 13.41 per unit. Subsequently, on October 23, 1991, it paid a further sum of Rs. 75,83,12,500 as consideration for the purchase of 5.50 crore units at the rate of Rs. 13.7875 per unit. In respect of the aforesaid two transactions the appellant issued to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the payment had been made. An alternative prayer which was made was for damages for a sum of Rs. 249, 19,00,549 plus further interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent, per annum on the said sum till the date of payment. As already indicated hereinabove by the impugned judgment dated March 11, 1996, the Special Court, Bombay, granted the relief of specific performance which required the appellant to buy 7.5 crore units for which payment had been made and in addition thereto it was also required, to purchase and sell to the respondent the units representing the rights issue which the respondent was deprived of availing of because of the non-delivery of the units. Costs of Rs. 27,87,000 were also awarded. Hence this appeal. We have heard coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific performance in the manner in which it was passed was probably not appropriate especially when the respondent could be compensated with the return of money and award of reasonable damages. As, now there is no dispute on the principle applicable namely, that the amount of Rs. 102,65,12,500 which was paid by the respondent had to be refunded to it and the respondent was also entitled to get a reasonable amount of compensation or damages, what is now required to be done is only to quantify the same. This is what we propose to do. The aforesaid letter dated July 1, 1992, written by the respondent when read along with the computation sheet accompanying the said letter clearly shows that the respondent regarded that the appellant had c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
