Running account recovery and securities transaction legality: proof of outstanding liability and statutory exceptions determined enforceability.

A claimant seeking recovery on a running account must prove the outstanding liability from its own pleadings and records; on the facts, the appellant failed to show that the earlier Reliance Industries contract remained subsisting, and the later delivery was treated as referable to the subsequent transaction. A securities transaction is unenforceable where it does not fall within the statutory exceptions under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the governing circular; the SAIL transaction did not qualify as spot, hand, special or otherwise permitted delivery, so it was treated as illegal and unenforceable. With both claims failing, the respondent's counterclaim and interest were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant established a recoverable claim in respect of the Reliance Industries shares, including the alleged subsisting contract dated 14-2-1992 and the appropriation of delivery against that contract; (ii) whether the transaction in SAIL shares was enforceable in law, or was prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the governing circular; and (iii) whether the respondent's counterclaim and interest were rightly decreed.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant established a recoverable claim in respect of the Reliance Industries shares, including the alleged subsisting contract dated 14-2-1992 and the appropriation of delivery against that contract.

Analysis: The pleadings proceeded on a claim for recovery on running accounts, not on a pleaded claim for damages for breach of contract. The appellant failed to produce convincing documentary material from its own books to show that the contract dated 14-2-1992 remained outstanding. The conduct reflected that delivery of the shares was treated as referable to the later transaction dated 23-3-1992. In these circumstances, the claim based on the alleged subsisting first contract was not made out.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the transaction in SAIL shares was enforceable in law, or was prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the governing circular.

Analysis: The contract note for the SAIL transaction was not shown to be a spot delivery, hand delivery, special delivery, or any other permitted form of contract. The statutory definition of securities was broad and did not confine the regulatory prohibition to listed securities alone. The circular issued under the Act permitted only transactions falling within the recognised exceptions, and the admitted facts did not bring the SAIL transaction within any such exception. The appellant's own correspondence also acknowledged the legal infirmity of the transaction.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant, and the SAIL transaction was held unenforceable.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent's counterclaim and interest were rightly decreed.

Analysis: Once the appellant's claim failed in relation to both the Reliance Industries and SAIL transactions, the account position supported the respondent's counterclaim. The difference between the contractual rates for the Reliance Industries shares was properly worked out, and the appellant remained liable for the amount found due. The award of interest was also upheld in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The counterclaim and the award of interest were upheld in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, the decree in favour of the respondent was affirmed, and the appellant obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction in securities that does not fall within the statutory exceptions permitted by the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the governing circular is illegal and unenforceable; separately, a claimant seeking recovery on a running account must establish the outstanding liability through its own records and pleadings.

---