Rajagopalan, J.- The proprietor of the plaintiff firm described it as a firm of stock and share brokers. His place of business was Devakottah. In paragraph 4 of his written statement the defendant contended that the plaintiff was both a broker and a dealer in shares. The defendant did not challenge the correctness of the plaintiff’s description of the defendant as a dealer in shares. The defendant was also a resident of Devakottah. Both parties agreed that transactions between them in purchase and sale of shares commenced on 7th June, 1945. The plaintiff claimed that the transactions between himself and the defendant formed the basis of an open, mutual and current account between them. The plaintiff’s claim in the suit was for the amount due to him on an account stated to the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant appealed.

Though the appeal was against the decree as a whole, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to four sets of transactions. He explained that the liability the plaintiff sought to enforce on the defendant under these four sets of transactions more than covered the amount decreed.

The genuineness of the contracts evidenced by Exs. B-1 to B-4 was not in dispute. Ex. B-1 was on 7th November, 1945, under which the defendant sold 200 steel corporation shares at Rs. 36-11-0 a share. The contract number was 1031. Contract No. 1067 evidenced by Ex. B-2 was on 13th November, 1945, for sale by the defendant of 100 more steel corporation shares, at the same price Rs. 36-11-0 a share. Under contract number 1066, Ex. B-3, dated 13th November, 1945, the defendant sold 100 Indian iron shares at Rs. 41-8-0 a share. The fourth contract, Ex. B-4, No. 1094, was on 24th November, 1945, for the sale by the defendant of 100 more Indian iron shares at Rs. 42-9-0 a share. Ex. B-1 recorded that the delivery of the shares was subject to the rules and usages of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The date of the contract was 7th November, 1945, and the date of settlement was shown in Ex, B-1 as 13th November, 1945. The other three contracts, Exs. B-2, B-3 and B-4 were for delivery under the rules, etc., of the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a member of either of the Stock Exchanges at Bombay and at Calcutta.

It was common ground again that before September, 1943, the rules of the. Bombay Stock Exchange provided for budla contracts, i.e., forward contracts in shares, while the Calcutta Stock Exchange provided only for ready delivery Contracts. But in 1945-46 neither the Bombay nor the Calcutta Stock Exchange rules provided for budla contracts. The rules of both the Stock Exchanges were in accordance with rule 94-C of the Defence of India Rules, which was in force between the 24th September, 1943 and 30th September, 1946. The Bombay, Calcutta and Madras Stock Exchanges, which framed the rules consistent with rule 94-C of the Defence of India Rules, provided only for ready delivery contracts.

The plaintiff’s claim as formulated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint was as follows:

“4. It is the usual course of business of the plaintiff to be employed by his several constituents as broker to effect purchases and sales of shares on their behalf they agreeing and undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff against the liability to be incurred by him in the course of such sales and purchases on their behalf according to the practices and usages incidental in the said line of business and to pay the plaintiff such amounts as he may employ in respect of the orders to him by the. constituents or for which they may render themselves liable together with interest thereon and commission at the agreed rate and to open as directly flowing from such employment a running account of dealings with such constituents debiting and crediting the several amounts in the account against such constituents which may arise in the course of such employment...... . Inter alia it is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document