IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT ggfisfiamés '
DATED THIS THE Gem DAY I§f4' 'AUG1*J.sT«2i:»_'6A"' .V "
CML Riavlsmrsy P1=:';t:*i'z\§1s:- biases '3
BETWEEN: t M
54/ s. Rashmi (3c::ns.St0zi1iurain Extc-msion
Near Syndica'w'v5B8i21k';-- " ' " .
Hanumantfianagar "
;,__ _ _ __
Rep. byfiits Dir£§¢tor,:V';V ' _ .
Venkatrgsh _ .. ' ' ...Pe:titio11er
(By Kumar 6; T.S.Srin:ivasa,
Advocates)
f ~ .3:-;.4:4x;:5raiga:aja
. '_ I Lah' BIN . H-:-mumaiah
. "Aged 'aébofit 43 years
R};-:12' No.3, 691 Cream, 40 Feet Road
Pflaxajunath Nagar
Ba1:tgaIoI~c~--56O 010.
._ HM/s. Satisha 85 Company
NQ124, 1" Floor, Margosa Road
Mallcswram
Ba:ngaiorc~560 003
Rep. by its Proprietor,
B.R.Satisha
., . N;:;7j5121 dated 20.3.2000, a sum of R's.40,€}OO/~--,
. * R's.60.f2?{}f§.i=énd Vida: chmuc: No.75125 dated 4.6.2000, a
{}i.iz1t: 2000 cash of Rs.30,00(}/~ were to the
Rs.2,00,€}0O/~. On presentation, cheque was
want of funcis. Therefore, plaintifi' filed the suit--'.fEar
ofmoncy. V .' ,
3. Defendants I 35 ll confestogfd .,h:"~; :'ni1i'»::tier 'aI1(i
separate written statcments.
4. G11 o'7.1o.2oo6,_mfa1 foa¢w§fmgf%issues:«
1.
Whether the titgafi ‘iguéi made over 2%
shares of Centum ‘ *§a_i;:;3si*t:s of Aptech
Limited, 50 sliegres of;if3I:C;’:,.: Nahar Exports,
40 sha1§g.’*.gf .;’.2.0() é.”11ares of Reliance
being a sub-bmker
undefér”V£i1eT.:i¢:§efi&§=iut ?&g§;’1 1:.5i”:1g”t11e main maker, to sell
the same in éiiizgfrkét?
2. Vfhgzthcz: ploves that by chfiqlze
Nai.7s122 cia:.m17’2Q.3.20o0 sum of Rs.16,7S0/-, by
30.75123 dated 30.3.2000 a sum of
sam –_c:;1′ -Rs;.40,0G0/- and vide cheque N0.960-47 dated
28.d8,_?.0O0 sum of Rs.27,365/ –, as Well in the month of
defendant No.2 being $ub-broker under ‘
No.1 being the main broker, and tfge u
on Mafleswaram Co-apemfivfhi
Branch, Bangaiore and thus sucfh ofT R5 ..
came to be paid for the of
. Whfiflfier the fh1th¢r——i;mvéa*.}A tha’f’abovev’§mfened
cheques Wfiffi made fnrzxm his sister?
. Whether the as the defendant No.2 discharge of said liability éhcquc in his favour
for s12–m.o’f cheqfic No.244(}83 drawn on
._ –S’€ock Exchange, Bangalore
. Wlileihcr further proves that on presentation
d:f :th::V.said cheqaes’ on 11.1.2001 at Maileswaram Co~
A ‘ Limited, Malleswaram Branch 011
._ ‘i§:”é§as returnecl on aoceunt of insufiiciency of
femds? ~ _ 3
.. Whcthér the plaintiff further proves that again as per the
V v.;_s§.i:uest of defendants 1 and 2 on rerpresentafion of the
said cheque during second Week of February 2001 the
” same came to be returned on 14.2.2001 again on the
account of funds insuficicnt?
N.d«v~e-~e1»»-
‘Whether the defendant No.1 fiuiher proves; that the
VT made thmugh legal noficae dated 28.2.2001 was
7. Whether the plaintiff further proves _
complaint agaizzst the deffendantfs’ Ifaizsié ‘ 1117:’ avlnfi b ‘ AV
Case vide Ne.l23lO2 is pendirig befeie ‘7’t’l’1t3″‘1%’\.i.1(‘Ziu}piV;i'{;s=3£.1§’l7.:
Chief Judicial Magisrmte Baa, ‘a-gal0re7P_v. e V ‘ ‘
8. Whether the plai11fifi”pIt3ves___t%}’3:::1f he is..e2fi_i’t 1_edvvii:e claim
interest. at the rate ofA___1 €.’.%> per
9. Wheiher the defendant-eNv.1–. it terminated
services of sub-bmker on
6.12.200{}”a};d was not its client?
16. 1 proves that the
suitflis as the plaintiif in the
of of his sister has filed the suit
‘sxrithoutVV’a:§.’i:s+e1o:§i£1_é share transactrion made by
sister payments made to the defendant
V defendant No.1 proves that the suit
were not in accordance with Bye–1aws of
Stock Exchange and also as per the guidelines
A. Seefirity Exchange B-oazfl of India (SE81)?
confined only for the shares handed over to the defendant
N’C:€L’v’~9V””fl””
No.2 and the plaint averments disclose .
$’vi:t::g at’ said shama the payment ”
shares and hence there is co1lusiica1″bcf3avL=:cI1;’th§:y3.air1€ifl'””.
it? _ ._ ,
13. Whether the defendant present
suit is hopelessly VV ” ‘ ‘
14. What decree or ” f
3. O3} ‘ an application
under Ozdea ii. to rcjacf: the plaint
as it learned trial Judge on
oonsiiefatipfi pf’ issues flamed has held that
suit 1 and there are no gmunds to
‘% A’ ‘meavpaagt. The”1;e§1ned trial Judge has found am: with
the Court with an application
01:15: Rule 1 1(a) £5 1 1(d) CFC, when the case was
” evidence. Therefore, the leazmed trial Judge
costs of Rs.1,0()O/–.
and the defendant No.2 to
6. The learned Counsel for Pciefcndant
plaint does not disciose any cans.-e”‘cf «ac-§’io1§’,”
question was not drawn by I–defe¥idaii.fi A’
time. u A ‘
7. The learned cqunsex gixbmjt in
order to invoke Order £21:-.§%é;;1e’«~. ;1f9;;;. CPC. the Couirt
need not consiclgi’ ‘the I :’.1i;:fcndants. The
averments
‘KS’ issues fiamad, there. are
series hpartzies. The I-«defendant is
stated to lirok§é1*__ ‘ifidcfcndant is as sub–b:mker. It its
V. «_ alsq that fl1e3r1_=_;___Were transactions inter SC defendants.
TiieIEf0z’§;’.qu;é5?ion of joint and several liability of I 85 II-
‘<'.;ii3i:E§1»:iavV1.1Vt$=.?."_'if:~'s 'gifiaatter to be deem' ed after holding me' 1. So
.¢ alsogis far Ldefcziclant not being drawer of cheque is
" K » :}iab!g_ tovfray suit cla1m' is a matter to be dealt!' ed afifir tr;al' .
"A9. As regards quesfion of limitation, suit is ii% for
" Eiicaovczy of money said to be paid on various dates, as stated
W