L.C.MALHOTRA vs J.C.MEHTA And CO.

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dt 10.7.91, by the Complainant. Briefly the facts are that the respondent is a Member of Stock Exchange Association, Delhi. It is alleged that the complainant purchased 500 shares of ILD at Rs. 15/- per share from the respondent. The complainant had given two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent on account of price of the said shares. One share scrip of 500 shares was sent to the complainant.

IT is pleaded by the complainant that five share scrips of 100 shares each should have been given to him. He informed the respondent on telephone and sent back the said scrip of 500 shares to him for exchange with five scrips of 100 shares each. IT is alleged that the respondent did not replace the share scrips. IT is prayed by the complainant that the respondent be directed to deliver 5 scrips of 100 shares each to the complainant alongwith dividend and other benefits against payment of Rs. 7,500/-. The complaint was contested by the respondent, who inter-alia stated in the written statement that after the share scrips were returned to him by the complainant he stopped the payment of the cheques. Thus no contract came into being. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no complete contract. The complainant has come up in appeal to the State Commission. We have heard the parties. It is not disputed that the complainant issued two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- andRs. 2,500/- dated 17.8.88 and when he returned the share scrips of 500 shares to the respondent he stopped payment of the cheques. From the aforesaid circumstance it is evident that the complainant was no longer interested in purchasing the shares and dismissed with the performance of the promise made to him. The respondent, therefore, was not bound to hand over 500 shares to him. In this situation in our view the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint

Faced with this situation the complainant produced a letter of the respondent dated 27.8.88 in which the latter had requested the complainant to return the transfer deed of 500 shares alongwith a cheque of Rs. 250/-. He contends that the said letter shows that the contract between the parties remained alive. On the other hand the respondent produced a reply dated 30.10.91 to the appeal filed before us, in which it is stated that in January ''90 the price of the ELD share had come down to Rs. 12/- per share in the market. But the complainant did not purchase the shares at that time though he was being benefitted to the extent of Rs. 3/- per share. Now the market has gone up and the price of the share is being quoted as Rs. 20/- per share and therefore he filed the complaint. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and find force in the reply. We have perused the file of the District Forum carefully and find that the complainant did not write any letter for the shares to the respondent after he had stopped the payment till June ''90. It appears that the price of the shares had arisen in June ''90 therefore, he served a notice on the respondent for delivery of the share scrips. If he was really anxious to purchase the share he would have served a notice in August/September 1988 when the share scrips were returned by him. It may again be highlighted that the value of the share had fallen to Rs. 12/- per share in January ''90. In case the complainant was anxious to purchase the shares he would have done so at that time and thus he would have made more profit However, he did not do so. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.