AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (8) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor and the Opposite Party a share broker. The complainant used to purchase and sell the shares of various compa- nies through the Opposite Party and he used to give written instructions to the Opposite Party for that purpose. On 7-4-1992 on his instructions, the Opposite Party purchased 50 shares of Reliance Industries at the rate of Rs. 345-20 paise per share. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 16,360 and was due in a sum of Rs. 900 to the Opposite Party. When the complainant offered to pay the balance of Rs. 900 and requested O.P. to deliver 50 shares, he was informed by the Opposite Party that on 25-3-1992 the complainant had placed an order with him for purchase of 100 shares of Reliance Industries for which the complainant is due Rs. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2-6-1992 asking the complainant to pay the balance of Rs. 40,490 as counterblast the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 6-6-1992 disowned the purchase of 100 shares. It is no doubt, the complainant placed an order for purchase of 50 shares, but delivery of 50 shares cannot be given without payment of the balance of amount with interest due to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party has a lien on the shares until the complainant pays all the amount due to the Opposite Party. As and when the complainant pays the balance of amount with interest at 21% p.a. the Opposite Party is prepared to deliver 150 shares of Reliance Industries to the complainant. 4. On behalf of the complainant Exs. A-1 to A-12 were marked and on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shares. A credit entry for Rs. 16,360 was also found in Ex. A-10. The Opposite Party on2-6-1992 sent a letter Ex. B-4 to the complainant requesting him to make payment of balance of the amount outstanding in the account, i e., Rs. 40,490. The District Forum is not inclined to believe the version of the complainant that he never placed oral order with the Opposite Party for purchase of shares as the same is belied by Ex. A-11 the Financial Statement of account of the complainant with the Opposite Party. This clearly shows that during the financial year 1991-92, the Opposite Party had purchased and sold shares worth more than Rs. 22 lakhs on behalf of the complainant. The complainant is not able to produce office copy of a single written ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his lien over the securities and other assets of the constituent when some amount is due from him, to the member. It therefore held relying on Ex. A-11 that the purchase and sales by the complainant during the financial year 1991-92 is almost equal, it therefore can be said that it shows that the complainant merely settled the difference of the amounts. With regard to the claim for a sum of Rs. 28,000 being the loss suffered on account of the fact of complainant lost the opportunity to apply for the shares and debenture on preferential basis. It relied on the affidavit filed by third party showing that even though applications were made for preferential shares by the shareholders, no such preferential shares were allotted. It, therefore, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Hyderabad Stock Exchange for March 1992. It shows that the transactions that took place between 13-3-1992 and 26-3-1992 did not acquire final shape until 7-4-1992 when all the formalities were complet- ed by the stock exchange. Thus it is evident, that since the transactions were not finalised up to 7-4-1992 by the stock exchange, being the registered stock broker with the exchange the Opposite Party would not have included the transaction dated 25-3-1992 in the account sent to the complainant. Therefore in Ex. A-11 the statement of account ending 31-3-1992 the transaction relating to 100 shares was included. Moreover it was only after receiving letter from the Opposite Party dated 2-6-1992 demanding payment of the amount, the complai....