1996 (3) TMI 540 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to unpaid auction discount.
2. Interpretation of the Vaimpu and the Act.
3. Role and limitations of the foreman.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Unpaid Auction Discount:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a direction for the State of Kerala and Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited to pay the plaintiff's share from the unpaid auction discount with interest. The plaintiff was a prompt subscriber to Division A and Division B of the ticket but was not paid the proportionate share of unpaid auction discount after the termination of the kuri. The trial court concluded that the unpaid auction discount should be distributed among the prompt subscribers, including the plaintiff, resulting in an entitlement of Rs. 41,247.40 for the plaintiff.

2. Interpretation of the Vaimpu and the Act:
The defendant no. 2 contested the suit, arguing that the Vaimpu stipulates that auction discounts lost by the subscriber are to be divided among prompt subscribers only, as mentioned in clause 8(c) of the Vaimpu. The trial court, however, found that the foreman cannot claim anything more than what is specifically provided in the Vaimpu. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court confirmed this interpretation, holding that the auction discount forfeited by non-prized subscribers must be distributed among prompt and regular subscribers as per the proportion of their ticket share.

3. Role and Limitations of the Foreman:
The foreman, as defined under Section 3(7) of the Act, is responsible for the conduct of the kuri and is entitled to commission as indicated in the Vaimpu. Section 14 of the Act entitles the foreman to obtain his prize without any deduction for discount and to such commission or remuneration as fixed by the Vaimpu. The Supreme Court, referring to the Shriram Chits and Investment (P) Ltd. v. Union of India case, emphasized that the foreman is not entitled to anything beyond the commission provided in the Vaimpu. The court highlighted the potential for exploitation by foremen and reiterated that any unpaid auction discount must be distributed among regular subscribers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court, confirming that the unpaid auction discount should be distributed among the prompt and regular subscribers. The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining that the foreman is only entitled to the commission as provided in the Vaimpu and cannot claim any additional amount. This decision ensures the protection of subscribers' rights and prevents potential exploitation by foremen. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.