NARESH CHANDRA SANYAL Vs. CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1970-9-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
September 25,1970
NARESH CHANDRA SANYAL
Appellant
VERSUS
CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
FATEH CHAND VS. BALKISHAN DASS [RELIED ON]GOPAL JALAN AND CO VS. CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
VBC FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1991-4-39] [REFERRED TO]MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION VS. RELIANCE BIG ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CA)-2013-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
S. NATARAJAN VS. S.V. GLOBAL MILLS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-4-402] [REFERRED TO]
ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH VARMA AND ORS. VS. DUSHYANT VARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2016-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK PRAKASH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
LINKMEN SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TAPAS SINHA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
GOTHAMI SOLVENT OILS LIMITED PYDIPARU TANUKU W G DISTRICT VS. MALLINA BHARATHI RAO [LAWS(APH)-2001-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
MILAN COMMERCIAL PVT LTD VS. ASIAN HEALTHCARE DERVICES LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2009-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
AMK & CO REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR K S MOHAMED BARIQ THIRUCHIRAPPALLI VS. DEPUTY CHIEF MATERIALS MANAGER GOLDEN ROCK SOUTHERN RAILWAY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU ASHOK KAPUR VS. RANA KAPOOR [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-96] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL DANG VS. INDIAN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-126] [REFERRED TO]
ASMA ASLAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-432] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT DOON VALLEY OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2021-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
B. L. SHANKARAPPA VS. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1492] [REFERRED TO]
M RATNAVARMA PADIVAL VS. KARNATAKA THEATRES LTD [LAWS(KAR)-1999-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. V B C FOODS P LTD [LAWS(APH)-1997-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
CLAUDE LILA PARULEKAR VS. SAKAL PAPERS P LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA KRISHNAN NAIR VS. NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY [LAWS(KER)-2013-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
ASMA ALSAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-102] [REFERRED TO]
IL AND FS TRUST COMPANY LIMITED VS. BIRLA PERUCCHINI LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2002-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA VS. HINDUSTHAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1972-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIAN ARTISTES ASSOCIATION VS. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Naresh Chandra Sanyal was the holder of a fully paid-up share of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. hereinafter called 'the Exchange'. As a member of the Exchange he was authorised to carry on business as a broker in shares, stocks and securities in the hall of the Exchange. In December 1941 Sanyal purchased one hundred shares of the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. from Johurmull Daga and Company, but did not arrange to take delivery of the shares on the due date. Johurmull Daga and Company sold the shares pursuant to the authority given to them by the Sub-Committee of the Exchange. The transaction resulted in a loss of Rupees 438/10/-. The Sub-Committee directed Sanyal to pay the amount due by him, but he failed to carry out that direction.
(2.)On January 7, 1942 the complaint of Johurmull Daga and Company was referred to the Full Committee of the Exchange. Sanyal failed to pay the amount directed to be paid by him and he was by resolution dated February 19, 1942 declared a defaulter. On September 1, 1942, at a meeting at which Sanyal was present, the Full Committee resolved that the share standing in his name be forfeited to the Exchange with effect from September 1, 1942 and that Sanyal be expelled from the membership of the Exchange.
(3.)Sanyal then instituted an action in the High Court of Calcutta on its original side, claiming a declaration that the articles of the Exchange providing for "forfeiture of a fully paid up share were ultra vires and illegal" and that "particularly Arts 21, 22 and 24 were invalid"; that the share held by him had not been "properly forfeited" by the Exchange and that forfeiture of the share was "irregular, void and inoperative and was not binding upon him". He also claimed an order that he be restored to the membership of the Exchange and that the share register be rectified accordingly. In the alternative Sanyal claimed a decree for Rs. 55,000/- being the value of the share, or in any event to the surplus of the sale proceeds after "liquidating the debts due by him to the Exchange." The suit was resisted by the Exchange. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal under the Letters Patent the decree was confirmed. With special leave Sanyal has appealed to this Court in forma pauperis.
(2.)On January 7, 1942 the complaint of Johurmull Daga and Company was referred to the Full Committee of the Exchange. Sanyal failed to pay the amount directed to be paid by him and he was by resolution dated February 19, 1942 declared a defaulter. On September 1, 1942, at a meeting at which Sanyal was present, the Full Committee resolved that the share standing in his name be forfeited to the Exchange with effect from September 1, 1942 and that Sanyal be expelled from the membership of the Exchange.
(3.)Sanyal then instituted an action in the High Court of Calcutta on its original side, claiming a declaration that the articles of the Exchange providing for "forfeiture of a fully paid up share were ultra vires and illegal" and that "particularly Arts 21, 22 and 24 were invalid"; that the share held by him had not been "properly forfeited" by the Exchange and that forfeiture of the share was "irregular, void and inoperative and was not binding upon him". He also claimed an order that he be restored to the membership of the Exchange and that the share register be rectified accordingly. In the alternative Sanyal claimed a decree for Rs. 55,000/- being the value of the share, or in any event to the surplus of the sale proceeds after "liquidating the debts due by him to the Exchange." The suit was resisted by the Exchange. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal under the Letters Patent the decree was confirmed. With special leave Sanyal has appealed to this Court in forma pauperis.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.