Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. That takes me to issue no.7, which requires the plaintiffs to prove joint and several liability of defendant nos.1, 2 and 4. According to the plaintiffs, this stands established and the issue is required to be answered in the affirmative, SPS-7-2002.doc since consideration paid by the plaintiffs was received by defendant no.1-BOK, per Exhibit P-2. The consideration was credited to the account of defendant no.4-Narottam, per answer to question 5 in Exhibit P-4. The BOK had issued a SGL transfer form on instructions of Narottam, as seen from answer to question no.1 in Exhibit P-2. Consideration paid by the plaintiffs was received by BOK, as evident from answer to question no.3 in Exhibit P-2. Secondly, the consideration was credited to the account of Narottam, as evident from answer to interrogatory no.5 in Exhibit P-4; thirdly, BOK had issued the SGL transfer form on instructions of Narottam, as evident from answer to interrogatory no.1 in Exhibit P-2 and; fourthly, Narottam acting on instructions of Dalal and instructed BOK to issue SGL transfer form, since he was assured by Dalal that he would deliver an equivalent amount of SGL held by him from SCB. This fact was proved by the answer to interrogatory no.5 in Exhibit P-4. Fifthly, Dalal is said to have admitted that he was a broker for transactions of purchase of securities by CMF from BOK on 27th May 1991. The fact that the transaction of purchase was entered into by BOK with CMF is established by SGLs issued by SCB in favour of BOK. That Dalal had received SGL transfer form, originally issued by BOK to the plaintiffs and which were returned by RBI for want of sufficient balance, and the demand made by SCB from CMF was not in order. According to Mr.Deshmukh, the role of each of the defendants was clear. The defendants have acted collusively and were therefore jointly and severally liable SPS-7-2002.doc to pay to the plaintiffs.

79. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Deshmukh had submitted that issue no.2 SPS-7-2002.doc stood proved; but, in my view, the mere administering of interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 annexes thereto will not necessarily be proof. Admissions contained in answer to interrogatories are not proof. Additional facts not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs may have been collected by way of obtaining answers to interrogatories and relevant material available with the answering party may be elicited [see (2008) 8 SCC 92]. Interrogatories are administered to facilitate proof of one's case and hence part of Order XI, which provides for discovery and inspection, interrogatories are administered to a party to the suit and not to a witness unlike in cross-examination.

86. In order to prove that plaintiffs purchased the suit securities from the Bank of Karad, the only relevant interrogations are the ones delivered to defendant no.1. The answers to interrogatory nos.1 and 4 do not help the plaintiffs to prove beyond doubt that the suit securities were purchased from BOK. The answer to interrogatory no.1 is guarded and the response is uncertain. The answer does not prove the purchase, but suggests that SGLs could have been issued by BOK, but on the instructions of Narottam. But, the plaintiffs do not contend that Narottam was authorized by them. On the contrary, it is the plaintiffs' case that the cheque for Rs.103.82 crores was credited to the account of defendant no.4 (Narottam), without authorization. The plaintiffs have distanced themselves from Narottam. Answer to interrogatory no.4 also relies upon a credit.

95. Mr. Deshmukh had submitted that the role of each of the party is clearly defined and they have acted collectively and are, therefore, jointly and severally liable. I am unable to agree. For the reasons already set out above, the answers to interrogatories do not and cannot relieve the plaintiffs from discharging the burden of proof. None of the answers relied upon amount to an unconditional admission of the plaintiff's assertions. Absent oral and documentary evidence to support, perusal of answer to interrogatory no.5 reveals that A.D. Narottam, by affidavit dated 13th November 2006, has stated that he stands by paragraph 8 of the written statement dated 23 rd August 2005. Paragraph 8 of the said written statement reveals that he denies, for want of knowledge, that CMF had purchased 11.5% GOI 2008 Security from BOK through Dalal of the face-value of Rs.58.39 crores. However, he states that Narottam gave delivery instructions to BOK to issue the Cost Memo and SGL transfer form for the value of Rs.58.39 crores on assurance of Dalal that he would deliver an equivalent amount of SGLs held by him from SCB and as confirmed by Dalal in his affidavit dated 23 rd May, 1992 (Exhibit P-17(A) in these proceedings). In view of the fact that such a delivery instruction was given, it is contended that this issue no.7 stands proved to the effect that consideration was credited to the account of Narottam, but this contention does not appear to be correct in view of the fact that while SPS-7-2002.doc dealing with paragraph (3A) of the plaint, Narottam has denied that the cheque issued by the CMF is found to be credited into the account of Narottam. He has denied that the sum of money was credited on 27 th May 1991. He has also denied, for want of knowledge, that CMF had authorized or instructed the sum of money to be credited to the account of Narottam; however, he admits that an "identical amount" of Rs.58.39 crores was transferred by internal voucher by BOK to the account of Narottam with BOK. Thus, he states that the claim is barred by limitation. Issue no.7 is also sought to be proved by Mr. Deshmukh by making reference to BOK's answer to question no.1 in the interrogatories administered in Chamber Summons No.7 of 2006 (Exhibit P-2). Furthermore, it is contended that on oral instructions of Dalal, A.D. Narottam gave instructions to BOK to issue SGL transfer forms, on assurance by Hitel Dalal that he would deliver equivalent amount of SGL held by him from SCB. According to the plaintiffs, Dalal has admitted that he was broker for the transaction for purchase of securities by the CMF from BOK on 27 th May 1991 and that this transaction was backed by SGLs issued by SCB in favour of BOK. Dalal has admitted to have received SGL transfer form originally issued by BOK to CMF, which had been returned for insufficient balance and that the demand made by SCB on CMF was not proper. For all the above reasons Issue no.7 is answered in the negative.