9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this appeal. Plaintiff Canbank Financial Services Ltd., respondent no. 1 herein filed the suit seeking a decree directing defendant no. 1 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.33,13,42,781.62/- with further interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum compounded quarterly from the date of the suit till realization. According to the plaintiff, it is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and a subsidiary of Canara Bank. Plaintiff has averred that it is engaged in the business of providing financial and management consultancy services and trading in Government and public sector securities and bonds. In course of business the plaintiff buys and sells Government and public sector bonds and securities in accordance with the guidelines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff has alleged that the transaction between defendant no. 1 and Canbank Mutual Fund are totally unconnected with the transaction between plaintiff and defendant no. 1. On the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief aforesaid on its assertion that the action of defendant no. 1 by adjusting the amount paid by the plaintiff towards payment allegedly due to defendant no. 1 from Canbank Mutual Fund is totally unauthorized. The defendant no. 1 contested the suit and its plea in the written statement is that on 8th of May, 1991, through a broker M/s. Naresh K. Aggarwala, defendant no. 1 purchased Coal India bonds of the face value of Rs.18 crores from Canbank Mutual Fund and paid to it an amount of Rs.18,05,64,65 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiff to said defendant. Therefore, according to defendant no. 1, the liability to deliver the securities to the plaintiff is that of Canbank Mutual Fund and not of defendant no. 1. It is the case of defendant no. 1 that there was no transaction between it and plaintiff for purchase of any securities on 24th of June, 1991. On the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed a large number of issues including the following issue with which we are concerned in the present appeal: "3) Whether Defendant prove that the said pay order for Rs. 18,59,71,808.22 was issued by Plaintiffs on behalf of CMF as alleged in para 8 of Written Statement?" On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, the trial court recorded a finding that the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., plaintiff-respondent no. 1, however, submits that it is a separate legal entity so also the Canbank Mutual Fund and it is established that as the amount was paid by the plaintiff for purchase of the securities, defendant no. 1 was obliged to deliver the securities or to refund the amount to the plaintiff. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submission and we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sundaram. It is the specific case of defendant no. 1 that the broker informed it that the plaintiff has made payment on behalf of Canbank Mutual Fund. However, the letter dated 25th of February, 1993 of the broker to defendant no. 1 shows that on 24th of June, 1991 the Coal India bonds were sold by defendant no. 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
