Collateral damages and set-off cannot defeat share price claims; private company share sales are not barred by securities law.

A collateral indemnity or damages claim cannot defeat a suit for the share price unless it is properly pleaded and proved as a set-off; a bare allegation of misrepresentation and clause-based breach did not extinguish the price claim. The Court also held that the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 applies to marketable securities ordinarily dealt with on a stock exchange, not to shares in a private limited company that are transfer-restricted. The share sale agreement was therefore not illegal, and the unpaid instalments of the share price were recoverable, with the defendants' defences on damages, set-off, and illegality failing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendants could resist payment of the share price by relying on alleged misrepresentation and clause 6 of the agreement as a breach of condition or warranty under the Sale of Goods Act. (ii) Whether the agreement for sale of shares in a private limited company was illegal under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants could resist payment of the share price by relying on alleged misrepresentation and clause 6 of the agreement as a breach of condition or warranty under the Sale of Goods Act.

Analysis: Clause 6 was construed as a collateral indemnity-type stipulation and not as a condition governing the sale of shares. The claimed entitlement under section 59 was treated as one sounding in damages, not as an automatic extinction of the price. The defendants had neither pleaded nor proved a proper set-off or quantified damages, and the alleged cross-claim was unsupported by particulars and evidence.

Conclusion: The defendants could not set off or extinguish the plaintiffs' claim for price on this ground, and this issue was decided against the defendants.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement for sale of shares in a private limited company was illegal under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.

Analysis: The term "securities" was read in the statutory context as referring to marketable securities ordinarily dealt with on a stock exchange. Applying noscitur a sociis, the Court held that shares of a private limited company, being transfer-restricted and not freely marketable, were outside the mischief and scheme of the Act. The contract was therefore not a prohibited or illegal transaction under the Act.

Conclusion: The agreement was held to be legal and binding, and this issue was decided against the defendants.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs succeeded in recovering the unpaid instalments of the share price, and the defendants' defences based on damages, set-off, and illegality failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A collateral indemnity or damage claim cannot defeat a seller's suit for price unless it is properly pleaded and proved as a set-off, and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 applies only to marketable securities of the kind dealt with on a stock exchange, not to shares in a private limited company.

---