Friday, September 11, 2015

LAW - definitiOn of words and phrases used >



 In regard to the aspect of ‘’definition’ of certain crucial  terms used,  the specific doubt raised is on the question whether  such definitions are to be taken as ‘inclusive’ or exhaustive’ .
On the first blush,  one’s sporadic reaction is the


 one has the following points to make
Meaning of “trading”

The term “trading” has been defined in Para 2(l) of the Regulations, in the following manner:

(l) "trading" means and includes subscribing, buying, selling, dealing, or agreeing to subscribe, buy, sell, deal in any securities, and "trade" shall be construed accordingly;

The definition carries elements of an exhaustive definition, which is apparent from the use of the expression “means” – therefore, it is unclear if the definition can be extended to cover what is not explicitly covered in it.

The term “trading” has been defined in Para 2(l) of the Regulations, in the following manner:

(l) "trading" means and includes subscribing, buying, selling, dealing, or agreeing to subscribe, buy, sell, deal in any securities, and "trade" shall be construed accordingly;
- Halsbury's Laws of England[3]defines sale as –

"Sale is the transfer of the ownership of a thing from one person to another for a money price. Where  the consideration for the transfer consists of other goods, or some other valuable consideration, not being money, the transaction is called exchange or barter; but in certain circumstances it may be treated as one of sale. The law relating to contracts of exchange or barter is undeveloped, but the courts seem inclined to follow the maxim of civil law, permutatio vicina est emptioni, and to deal with such contracts as analogous to contracts of sale. It is clear, however, that statutes relating to sale would have no application to transactions by way of barter."

The words “buying” and “selling” are generally clear and unambiguous. In case of “sale”, there is a transfer of property, along with other features. According to Benjamin,[1] to constitute a valid “sale”, there must be a concurrence of the following elements –

1.   Parties competent to contract;
2.   Mutual assent;
3.   A thing, the absolute or general property of which is transferred from the seller to the buyer;
4.   A price in money is paid or promised.

Pledge and mortgage:

A mortgage is defined in Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to mean the following –

(a)           A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability.

Therefore, the word “deal” may include any form of a transaction which parties may conduct in course of trade practices. Thus, the expression “deal” obtains a contemporaneous meaning, including within its sweep each of the different types of ways in which parties may, in course of trade, “deal” with a particular object. For example, the context in the present case is securities. So, securities may be sold, pledged, mortgaged, or may be the subject matter of a securities lending transaction, or securities ready-forward trade, etc.

 <<<<<<<
At best, as viewed, it makes for  a mixed bag of confusing and intriguing source for prolonged thoughts. This is prima facie an area over which even angels may not venture to tread any  comfortably; and most certainly not in the remote hope of arriving at a satisfactory or even self-satisfying conclusion. For an appreciation of the rationale , if not 'wisdom', behind such a reaction,  attention may be drawn to the pretty long line of / volumes of reported cases in which the aspect of 'interpretation' of words and terms used in any law made by humans,-you name it-  regardless of the level of 'IQ' or 'EQ' of its makers.

As legislative history bears out, the task of independently reading and understanding by any one concerned, even legal luminaries being no exception' , more so the more difficult task of   interpretation entrusted to judiciary has always proved so formidable as to have left with no plausible solution. To add to the complication, the recent innovation of 'deeming' concept, - which has been increasingly reported to and attempted even amending the basic national charter incredulously calls for a pointed mention.


< Pending to EDIT




 [The following guest post is contributed by Vinod Kothari and Abhirup Ghosh of Vinod Kothari & Co.
This is the continuation of a previous post available here]

Conclusion

SEBI’s Guidance Note creates an unwarranted confusion about pledges, and this series of posts has tried to align understanding pertaining to pledges in different scenarios.


Key Note: Not Unrelated >


http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2015/09/zen-treasure-hunt.html

No comments:

Post a Comment