Delhi District Court
Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs . Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. on 28 January, 2010
1
Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE15 (CENTRAL), DELHI
Suit No. 306/09
Shri Suresh Ahuja, Prop.
M/s S. K. Securities,
206, Durga Chambers,
1353, D. B. Gupta Road,
Delhi .........Plaintiff
V E R S U S
1. Shri Rajinder Kumar Batra
S/o Late Shri R. L. Batra,
R/o F30, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi
2. Mrs. Bhawna Arora,
3. Shri Balwant Rai Arora,
Both are:
R/o 172, Carriapa Marg,
Sainik Farm, New Delhi .........Defendants
Date of Institution : 11/07/2001
Date of Judgment : 28/01/2010
J U D G E M E N T
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.5,08,094.05 (Rupees five lacs eight thousand ninety four and paise five only) 2 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. alongwith interest pendentilite and future and cost of the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the suit are as under :
3. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is dealing in the business of sale and purchase of shares and debentures in the open market. Defendant no. 1 used to purchase and sell the shares and debentures through the plaintiff and the statement of account was usually maintained by the plaintiff in this regard. Defendant no. 1 sold 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication bearing nos. 1285231 to 1285430 (200 shares), 5546266 to 5546365 (100 hares), 2045546 to 2045645 (100 shares), 9460731 to 9460830 (100 shares), 9608841 to 96089040 (200 shares) in the joint name of defendant nos.2 & 3 to the plaintiff and received full and final payment in lieu of the said shares. Certain amount of consideration of the said shares was paid to defendant no. 1 and the balance amount was paid to defendant nos. 2 and 3 on the request of defendant no. 1 vide cheque nos. 935736 dated 18.02.1999, 935735 dated 18.02.1999 and 835026 dated 20.01.1999. On 18.04.2000, the plaintiff received back 100 shares bearing nos. 1285331 3 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. to 1285430 from the NSE with remarks "bad delivery" and with the reason that defendant no. 3 has lodged a complaint with P.S. Sainik Farm against defendant no. 1 for non payment of consideration against these 100 shares and the defendant no. 1 has filed a suit against defendant no. 2 for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The said suit has already been disposed off by Shri A.K.Garg, ADJ, Delhi on 14.03.2001 and the said proceedings were initiated by all the defendants in collusion with each other in order to cheat, defraud and misappropriate the hard earned money of the plaintiff. All the defendants have received full and final payment in regard to the aforesaid 700 shares from the plaintiff. On 01.01.2001, the plaintiff again received back 100 shares bearing nos. from 5546266 to 5546365 from the company as "bad delivery" and the plaintiff had to pay heavy amount to the buyers of those shares in order to compensate them and to save his reputation and goodwill. Again on 19.02.2001, the plaintiff received back 300 shares bearing nos. from 9608841 to 99609040 and 9460731 to 9460830 for the same reason i.e. "bad deliveries". The plaintiff had to purchase shares from the open market to rectify the bad deliveries. On 23.04.2001, the plaintiff received 100 shares 4 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. bearing nos. from 2045546 to 2045645 with remarks "bad delivery" and the plaintiff was again forced to purchase the shares from the open market to rectify the bad deliveries and to save his reputation. In all, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,65,054.05 (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) to rectify the bad deliveries. The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.4,65,054.05 and a sum of Rs.43,040/ as interest @ 24% per annum till 09.05.2001 i.e. in total, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,08,094.05 (Rupees five lacs eight thousand ninety four and paise five only) alongwith interest @ 24% per annum pendentelite and future alongwith cost of the suit be passed.
4. The defendant no. 1 has filed WS and has contested the suit. In the WS, defendant no. 1 has admitted that he used to deal in buying and selling of shares and allied products etc. in the open market. It is stated that 700equity shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd. (HFCL) which were in the name of Ms. Bhawna Arora jointly with Shri Balwant Rai Arora were sold to defendant no. 1 and the share certificate alongwith duly signed transfer deed were handed over to defendant no. 1 and for these shares and 5 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. other shares, payments were made through cheques but before that defendant nos. 2 & 3 had made some other purchases also. It is admitted that 700 shares of HFCL as stated in the plaint were sold by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff and certain amount of consideration was paid to defendant no. 1 and balance amount of the said shares was paid to defendant nos. 2 & 3 as stated in the plaint. It is stated that defendant no. 1 had tendered good delivery to the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 never had any malafide intention or ulterior motive to grab the hard earned money of the plaintiff as stated. It is stated that it is the defendant nos. 2 & 3 who got the transfer of shares stopped. It is also not denied that shares as stated in the plaint were received back by the plaintiff on account of bad delivery. It is stated that defendant no. 1 agrees to the extent that the claim of the plaintiff may be on the basis of convention and trades prevailing in the market. It is the transferor/defendant nos.2 & 3 always responsible for rectifying all sorts of anomalies arising out of deal for any reason because they were only the future beneficiaries.
5. The defendant nos. 2 & 3 have also filed WS to the suit and have contested the same. In the WS, defendant nos. 2 & 3 6 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. have taken objection that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and the suit is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit against defendant nos. 2 & 3 as no transaction or dealing was made between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 & 3. The suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant nos. 2 &
3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1 as a counter blast to the police case which was registered against defendant no. 1 and Shri Ramesh Kumar Bhatia vide FIR no. 50/2000 u/s 420,468,471 IPC, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar. The plaintiff has filed the suit with a motive to harass and blackmail defendant nos. 2 & 3 and to extract money from them. It is stated that defendant no. 1 used to purchase and sell the shares and debentures but defendant nos. 2 & 3 have no knowledge whether the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 had any dealing. Defendant nos. 2 & 3 had no dealing with the plaintiff regarding sale and purchase of shares. However, the defendant nos. 2 & 3 sold the shares to defendant no. 1 and he cheated defendant nos. 2 & 3 and defendant no. 1 had also filed a civil suit against defendant nos. 2 & 3 and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution and defendant no. 3 lodged a complaint in police against defendant no. 1 and 7 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. one other person as they cheated defendant nos. 2 & 3 forging their signatures on the shares and police case is pending in the Court. The defendant nos. 2 & 3 sold 1000 shares to defendant no. 1 against full and final amount of Rs.72,000/ and defendant no. 1 issued a cheque bearing no. 207140 dated 22.03.1999 drawn on Bank of America and the said cheque was dishonoured on 12.04.1999. Defendant no. 1 also issued one cheque for Rs.11,600/ against UTI Shares. It is denied that three cheques were given to defendant nos. 2 & 3 in respect of 700 shares but defendant nos. 2 & 3 have no concern with 700 shares as mentioned. A cheque of S. K.Securities for Rs.11,600/ was received through defendant no.1 against UTI shares and one cheque forRs.7,600/ issued by defendant no.1 of UTI shares was received which was dishonoured. It is stated that another cheque bearing number 207140 dated 29.03.1999 for Rs.72,000/ issued by Rajender Kumar Batra for 1000 shares of HFCL was also dishonoured. The defendant nos. 2 & 3 did not receive any payment from the plaintiff nor any transaction took place between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 & 3. The defendant nos. 2 & 3 approached defendant no. 1 when the cheque for Rs.72,000/ was dishonoured in April, 1999 and he assured 8 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. to return 1000 shares of HFCL but he did not return the same and defendant nos. 2 & 3 approached the company and the company confirmed that 400 shares out of said 1000 shares have already been transferred in the name of different persons and remaining 600 shares are in the process of transfer. A police complaint was accordingly lodged against defendant no. 1 and other persons in P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and case was registered. The police has taken in their possession all the shares. It is denied that police proceedings and complaint were initiated by the defendants in collusion with each other in order to cheat and misappropriate the money of the plaintiff, as alleged. It is stated that the plaintiff has not paid any amount to defendant nos. 2 & 3 and the defendants are not liable to pay any amount. It is stated that suit of the plaintiff is barred by period of limitation. It is stated that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. The plaintiff has filed replication to WS of defendant nos. 2 & 3. In the replication, plaintiff has controverted the allegations of defendant nos. 2 & 3 as stated in the WS and has reiterated the contents of the plaint.
9
Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my ld. Predecessor on 20.04.2004 : "1. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants no. 2 & 3? OPD.2.
2. Whether there is no cause of action against the defendants no. 2 & 3 as no transaction has taken place between the plaintiff and defendants no.2 & 3? OPD2.
3. Whether the present suit is counter blast to FIR No.50/2000 registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar? OPD2.
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD2.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.5,08,094.05 P. alongwith 24% interest? OPP.
6. Relief."
8. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined Shri Suresh Ahuja, Proprietor of S.K.Securities as PW1.
9. The defendant no.1 Shri Rajinder Kumar Batra examined himself as D1W1. Defendant no. 2 Ms. Bhawna Arora examined herself asD2W1 and defendant no. 3 Shri Balwant Rai Arora appeared in witness box as D3W1. 10
Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors.
10. I have heard the parties and carefully perused the record.
My findings on the specific issues are as under : 11. Issues No.1 & 2 In their Written Statement, the defendants No.2 & 3 have taken objection that the plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit against the defendants No.2 & 3 as no transaction or any dealing took place between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 & 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 used to purchase and sell the shares and debentures etc. through the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 sold 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited which were in the joint name of defendant Nos.2 & 3 to the plaintiff and received full and final payment in lieu thereof and some part of the consideration was paid to defendant No.1 and on request of defendant No.1, the balance part of the consideration was paid to defendant No.2 & 3 vide cheques.
12. In order to prove his case the plaintiff has appeared in the witness box as PW1 and adduced his evidence by way of affidavit. In para 3 of affidavit filed in evidence, the plaintiff 11 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. has stated that defendant No.1 used to purchase and sell the shares through him(plaintiff). In para 4 of his affidavit PW1 has stated that defendant No.1 sold 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited which were in the joint name of defendant Nos.2 & 3 to the plaintiff and certain amount of consideration was paid to defendant No.1 and the balance amount of consideration was paid to defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the request of defendant No.1. The plaintiff/PW1 stated in his crossexamination that he was not known to defendant Nos.2 & 3 personally and he came to know about them for the first time in December, 1998 or January, 1999 when these shares were sold. PW1 further admitted in the crossexamination that he had no direct dealing regarding purchase and sale of shares with defendant Nos.2 & 3 and 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited which are subject matter of the present suit were given to him by defendant No.1. PW1 further stated in his crossexamination that part payment of the said shares were given to defendant No.1 in respect of those shares and part payment was given to defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the instructions of defendant No.1. Hence, as per evidence adduced by plaintiff, the plaintiff never entered into any agreement with defendant Nos.2 & 3 whereby they 12 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. agreed to transact in any share of defendant Nos.2 & 3. As per evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had purchased the shares belonging to defendant Nos.2 & 3 from defendant No.1 and the case of the plaintiff is that part payment which was given to defendant Nos.2 & 3, was given on the instructions of defendant No.1. D2W1 MS. Bhawna Arora and D3W2 Shri Balwant Rai Arora admitted that the cheque for a sum of Rs.11,600/ (Rupees eleven thousand six hundred only) was given to them but they stated it was not in respect of the shares in question and the same was in respect of the shares of UTI. PW1 also stated in his crossexamination that he had sold other shares of defendant Nos.2 & 3 through defendant No.1 and those shares were of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited and Master Gain. Part payment which plaintiff alleges to have made to defendant Nos.2 & 3 directly was not made by the plaintiff on the asking of defendant Nos.2 & 3 and it was on the request of defendant No.1 that the plaintiff made payment to defendant Nos.2 & 3 by way of cheque. Such act of plaintiff of making part payment to defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the request of defendant No.1 will not create any concluded agreement between plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 & 3. The plaintiff has relied upon case 13 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. Hooper v. Herts and Another (19047) All ER Rep 849 (CA) wherein it has been held that duty of the transferor is not to prevent transferee from obtaining benefit of transfer. However, the present judgement is of no avail to the plaintiff as the plaintiff had not entered into the transaction in respect of shares in question directly with defendant Nos.2 & 3.
13. From the evidence adduced on record, it is apparent that the defendant Nos.2 & 3 had no direct dealing with the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 & 3 had sold their shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited to defendant No.1 who in turn sold the same to plaintiff. As per record there was dispute of payment between defendant No.1 on one hand and defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the other hand. Moreover, the part payment which plaintiff alleges to have made to defendant Nos.2 & 3 was also on the instructions of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to prove that defendant Nos.2 & 3 had requested him to give payment of shares in question directly to them. The plaintiff has made part payment to defendant Nos.2 & 3 on behalf of defendant No.1 with whom the defendant Nos.2 & 3 had dealings. As the plaintiff had not entered into any agreement with defendant Nos.2 & 3 in respect of the 14 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. sale of the shares which are in dispute, hence, there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 &
3. Merely act of making some payment by plaintiff to defendant Nos.2 & 3 on behalf of defendant No.1 will not confer right on the plaintiff to sue the defendant Nos.2 & 3 who had admittedly not entered into any transaction with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the act of defendant No.1 as the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 had taken payment from him in respect of 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited but the same were subsequently returned back on account of bad delivery. In the circumstances, the plaintiff can only sue the defendant No.1 who has received payment from the plaintiff and not defendant Nos.2 & 3 who did not enter into any transaction with the plaintiff in respect of the shares in question. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 and against the plaintiff.
14. Issue No.3 The defendant Nos.2 & 3 have pleaded in their WS that they have made police complaint against defendant No.1 and Shri Ramesh Kumar Bhatia who have business dealings with the plaintiff, on the basis of which FIR 15 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. No.50/2000, u/s 420/468/471 IPC was registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar. Copy of the final report u/s 173 CrPC filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate has been filed on record by defendants and the same is Ex.DW2/1 and as per said final report Shri Ramesh Kumar Bhatia and Shri Rajendra Kumar Batra (defendant No.1 herein) are the accused persons. It is to be noted that the present plaintiff is not accused in said case FIR No.50/2000, u/s 420/468/471 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar. As present plaintiff is not an accused in the said FIR No.50/2000, hence, there is no question of plaintiff filing any litigation against the defendant Nos.2 & 3 to counteract the said FIR No.50/2000. In the circumstances, the objections of defendant Nos.2 & 3 that the present suit is a counter blast to FIR No.50/2000, PS Ambedkar Nagar has no force. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
15. Issue No.4 In para 7 of Preliminary Objection in Written Statement, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have taken objection that the suit is barred by time. However, during arguments learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 & 3 has contended that he does not 16 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. press this issue as the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
16. Issue No.5: In para 3 of the plaint it is stated that the defendant No.1 had sold 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited, which were in the joint name of defendant Nos.2 & 3, to the the plaintiff and defendants received full and final payment in lieu of the said shares. In para 4, 6, 7 & 8 of the plaint it is stated that 600 shares out of the aforesaid 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited were received back as bad delivery and in his Written Statement, the defendant No.1 has admitted that 700 equity shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited which were in the joint name of defendant Nos.2 & 3 were sold by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. However, the plea of the defendant No.1 is that share certificates alongwith duly signed transfer deeds were handed over to the defendant No.1 and before this, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 had made some other purchases also and the defendant No.1 has tendered good delivery to the plaintiff and there was no malafide intention on the part of defendant No.1. In para 7 17 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. of reply on merits in Written Statement, the defendant No.1 has mentioned that the defendant No.1 had no ulterior motive to grab the hard earned money of the plaintiff and it is only the defendant Nos.2 & 3 who got the transfer of shares stopped.
17. The defendant No.1 has not rebutted the case of the plaintiff that the entire payment of said shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited was made. However, the plea of the defendant No.1 is that it is defendant Nos.2 & 3 who got the transfer of the shares stopped and it is defendant Nos.2 & 3 who were liable to make the payments as claimed by the plaintiff. The contention of defendant No.1 is that after giving the duly signed transfer deeds, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 were not entitled to get the transfer of shares stopped. It is to be noted that in this case the plaintiff has come to the court demanding the payment in respect of the shares which he had purchased from defendant No.1 which were subsequently returned back as bad delivery. In findings of Issue Nos.1 & 2 above, it has been held that defendant Nos.2 & 3 were not party to the agreement which was arrived between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of 700 shares of Himachal 18 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. Futuristic Communication Limited. The transaction regarding sale/purchase of 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited was arrived between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has not rebutted that the plaintiff has parted with the agreed amount in favour of defendant No.1, out of which a part of the money was given to defendant Nos.2 & 3 on asking of defendant No.1. The plaintiff had purchased the shares in question from defendant No.1 on the premise that the same shall be transferred and on that account the entire sale consideration of the said shares was paid. The plaintiff had not entered into any transaction with defendant Nos.2 & 3 in respect of the shares in question. In the circumstances, the only course which was open for the plaintiff was to recover the amount of loss from defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 who appeared in the witness box as D1W1 has admitted in his crossexamination that he had received the entire amount from the plaintiff. However, defendant No.1 has tried to setup a case that he had made payment to defendant Nos.2 & 3 but the defendant Nos.2 & 3 with ulterior motives got the transfer of said shares stopped and also got one case FIR No.50/2000, u/s 420/471/468 IPC, registered against him at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar. The 19 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. defendant Nos.2 & 3 have adduced evidence by way of their affidavits and they appeared in the witness box as D2W1 & D3W2 respectively and in the crossexamination both of them have stated that they had received a sum of Rs.11,600/ (Rupees eleven thousand six hundred only) on behalf of the plaintiff but the same was in respect of shares of UTI and not in respect of the shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited. In para 6 of their respective affidavits, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have mentioned that they had also sold shares of UTI to defendant No.1 and he had handed over cheque of S.K. Securities for Rs.11,600/ (Rupees eleven thousand six hundred only) and another cheque for Rs.7,600/ (Rupees seven thousand six hundred only) against UTI shares and no amount has been received by defendant Nos.2 & 3 against 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited sold to defendant No.1. From the evidence adduced on record, it is apparent that there was dispute between defendant No.1 on the one hand and defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the other hand regarding payment of shares in respect of which they had transactions and defendant Nos.2 & 3 have alleged that they have not received the payment of 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited 20 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. which were sold to them by defendant No.1. On account of dispute between defendant No.1 & defendant Nos.2 & 3, the plaintiff cannot be made to suffer who had made payment of entire consideration amount of 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited to defendant No.1. If defendant No.1 was aggrieved that defendant Nos.2 & 3 had received the entire payment in respect of 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited and despite that they got the transfer of shares stopped with ulterior motives, in that case it was open for the defendant No.1 to file appropriate legal proceedings against defendant Nos.2 & 3 to mitigate the loss which he (defendant No.1) suffered on account of act of defendant Nos.2 & 3. In the circumstances, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the loss which he has suffered on account of transaction, which he entered with defendant No.1 in respect of 700 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited, from the defendant No.1.
18. By way of present suit the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.4,65,054.05/ (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) which the plaintiff had to spend to rectify bad delivery and to save his reputation and goodwill 21 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. and the plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs.43,040/ (Rupees forty three thousand forty only) as interest @ 24% per annum till 09/05/2001. In order to prove that the plaintiff spent a sum of Rs. 4,65,054.05/ (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) to purchase the said shares, the plaintiff has relied upon bills Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4. The defendant No.1 has not given any suggestion to PW1 in the crossexamination that the plaintiff did not purchase the shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited vide bills Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 or that Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 are forged and fabricated documents. Defendant No.1 has also not given any suggestion to plaintiff/PW1 in the crossexamination that PW1/plaintiff had not suffered any loss of Rs.4,65,054.05/ (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) on account of bad delivery of 600 shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited. The plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to recover principal amount of Rs.4,65,054.05/ (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) from the defendant No.1.
19. The plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs.43,040/ (Rupees forty three thousand forty only) as interest @ 24% per 22 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. annum. The plaintiff has not proved that any written notice was given to defendant No.1 claiming amount before institution of the suit. The plaintiff has not proved that when he entered into transaction with defendant No.1, any interest was stipulated which was to be paid in case of any dispute between the parties. The plaintiff has also not proved that he has claimed interest @ 24% per annum as the rate at which moneys were lent or advanced by the nationalised banks in respect of commercial transactions. In the circumstances and in view of section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover principal amount of Rs.4,65,054.05/ (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) from defendant No.1 alongwith interest @ 10% per annum on the principal amount which can be taken as the interest on which the moneys were lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relations to commercial transactions, during the period of question, from the date of suit till realisation thereof. This issue is answered accordingly.
20. Issue No.6 Relief: In view of findings on Issue No.5 above, the plaintiff shall be 23 Suit No. 306/09Suresh Ahuja vs. Rajinder Kumar Batra & Ors. entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.4,65,054.05/ (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) alongwith interest @ 10% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,65,054.05/ (Rupees four lacs sixty five thousand fifty four and paise five only) from the date of filing of the suit till its realization against defendant No.1 only. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to proportionate cost of the suit. Decreesheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open court on 28/01/2010) (HARISH DUDANI) Additional District Judge15 (Central) Delhi