LexJUGAL KISHORE RAMESHWARDAS versus MRS. GOOLBAI HORMUSJI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 857 into individual acts which the donor is capable of per- forming and which he appoints his attorney to <lo for him and in his name and on his behalf. It is within the very nature of the general power of attorney that all the distinct acts which the donor is capable of per- forming are comprised in the one instrument which is executed by him, and if that is the position, it is but logical that whatever acts the donor is capable of per- forming whether in his individual capacity or in his representative capacity as trustee or as executor or administrator are also comprised within the instru- ment and are not distinct matters to be dealt with as such so as to attract the operation of section 5. I am therefore of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the majority Judges in the High Court of Judioture at Calcutta was correct and would accord- ingly dismiss this Appeal with costs. BY THE CouRT.--In accordance with the opinion of the majority the Appeal is allowed with costs here and in the Court below. JUGAL KISHORE RAMESHW ARDAS v. MRS. GOOLBAI HORMUSJI [BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and B. P. SINHA JJ.) Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925 (Bombay Act Vil/ of 1925)-Ss. 3( 4) and 6-Sale and purchase of securities by appellant on behalf of resffondent-Dispute between the parties whether appellant was acting within his authority wl1en he purchased the shares-Relationship between the patties that of principal and agent and, not that of seller and purchaser-Whether falls within purview of s. 6-Contract notes sent by brokers to their constituent-Mere inti- mations by brnkers to constituent-That contract had been entered into -Arbitration agreement-Essentials thereof-Rules framed by Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association-Complete code by themselves- Rule 167-Whether contract notes void thereunder. The appellant-a share-broker carrying on business in the City of Bombay ar.d a member of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' 17-84 S. C. lndia/59 1955 The MrmbeT, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Bwthall Bhagwati ]. 1955 Octobtr 4. 1955 Jugal Kishore Rameshwardas v. lt.1rs. G··olbai Hormusji 858 SUPREME COURT REP9RTS [1955] ·Association-was employed by the respondent for effecting sales and purchases of shares on her behalf. The appellant effected purchases of 25 shares of Tata Deferred and 350 shares of Swadeshi Mills to square the outstanding sales of the same number of shares standing in her name and sent the relative contract notes therefor to her. She repudiated the contracts on the grqund that the appellant had not been authorised to close the transactions on the date mentioned by him and asked him to square them at a later date. The appellant maintained that the transactions had been closed in accordance with her instructions. The appellant referred the dispute for arbitration to the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association in pursuance of an arbitration clause in the contract notes. The respondent refused to submit to arbitration of the association on the ground that the contract notes were void and therefore no arbitration proceedings could be taken thereunder. The arbitrators made an award in favour of the appellant in the absence of the respondent who declined to take part in the proceedings .. 'fhe respondent filed an application for setting aside the award. T.he Bombay High Court held that the con· tracts in question were not ready delivery contracts as defined in s. 3( 4) of the Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act VIII of 1925 and that they were accordingly void under s. 6 of the Act and there· fore the arbitration clause and the proceeding taken thereunder cul· n1inating in the a\vard were also void. Held that apart from the question whether the contracts in question were for ready delivery or not, they were outside ~he pur· view of s. 6 of Bombay Act Vlll of 1925 because they were not contracts for sale and purchase of securities. The dispute between the parties was as to whether the appellant was acting \vithin the scope of his authority when he purchased the shares. If he was .acting within his authority, the respondent was liable to him. If those purchases were unauthorised~ the appellant was liable to the respondent for damages. In either case the dispute was one which arose out of the contract of employment of the appellant by the respondent as a broker and n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.