https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112396 An agreement for purchase of shares by instalments did not amount to a completed sale in presenti, so the plaintiff could not recover the unpaid price of shares not yet purchased; the proper remedy, if any, was damages for breach. The contract was also held illegal and unenforceable because it contravened the securities notification issued under Section 16 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because instalments were payable at Shimla and part of the cause of action arose there. On these principal issues, the plaintiff's suit failed. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:13:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112396 An agreement for purchase of shares by instalments did not amount to a completed sale in presenti, so the plaintiff could not recover the unpaid price of shares not yet purchased; the proper remedy, if any, was damages for breach. The contract was also held illegal and unenforceable because it contravened the securities notification issued under Section 16 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because instalments were payable at Shimla and part of the cause of action arose there. On these principal issues, the plaintiff's suit failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112396