https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113401 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. en-us Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113401 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113401