9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar understanding and arrangement that the bonds would be delivered by Canbank Mutual Fund to the plaintiff on account of the money having been paid by the plaintiff to said defendant. - Civil Appeal No. 5281 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2013 - Chandramauli kr. Prasad And V. Gopala Gowda,JJ. JUDGMENT Chandramauli kr. Prasad,J. Defendant No. 1, the Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., a Company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30th of June, 2004 passed by the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities), Bombay in Suit No. 11 of 2002 decreeing the plaintiff s suit for a sum of Rs. 18,59,71,808.22/- along with interest at the rate of 15% has pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaintiff found that the Coal India bonds purchased by it from defendant no. 1 on 24th of June, 1991 have not been received by them. Accordingly, plaintiff wrote a letter dated 1st of October, 1992 to defendant no. 1 for delivery of the bonds or to refund the amount paid by it. According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 acknowledged the receipt of the aforesaid amount by Canara Bank pay order but asserted that it was for settlement of Canbank Mutual Fund bank receipt No. 2214 issued by them in its favour on 8th of May, 1991. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 was not justified in adjusting the amount paid by the plaintiff for purchase of bonds towards transactions between defendant no. 1 and Canbank Mutual Fund. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anbank Mutual Fund. It is claimed by defendant no. 1 that for transaction dated 24th of June, 1991 the broker has issued a contract note to defendant no. 1 who by letter dated 30th of October, 1992 confirmed that he had received the bank receipt No. 2214 issued by Canbank Mutual Fund from defendant no. 1 and handed over that receipt to Canbank Mutual Fund. Although defendant no. 1 admits that broker had informed him that the pay order dated 24th of June, 1991 was issued on account of plaintiff, the said payment had been made by it with a clear understanding and arrangement between the plaintiff and the Canbank Mutual Fund that the bonds would be delivered by Canbank Mutual Fund to the plaintiff on account of the money having been paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intiff. However, its assertion is that the payment was made to it by the plaintiff on behalf of the Canbank Mutual Fund. In view of this assertion, the only question which falls for consideration is as to whether defendant no. 1 has established that the payment that was made by the plaintiff to it on 24th of June, 1991 was on behalf of the Canbank Mutual Fund? Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no. 1-appellant submits that on 24th of June, 1991, the appellant received the payment and the broker informed it that the payment had been made by the plaintiff on behalf of Canbank Mutual Fund. Once this is established, the case of the plaintiff would fail. Ms. Sunita Dutt, Counsel appearing on behalf Canbank Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
