9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant-firm purchased 112 bales of tobacco from the respondent-firm. 2. Whether the suit was properly constituted and within the limitation period. 3. Whether the Receiver had the authority to institute the suit in his own name. 4. Determination of the price of the tobacco and the rate of interest applicable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Purchase of 112 Bales of Tobacco: The main defense of the appellant-firm was that it never purchased 112 bales of tobacco from the respondent-firm. The trial court held that the respondent-firm had established the contract but not the price agreed upon. However, the High Court found that the price of tobacco agreed to between the parties was 8 annas per pound and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 14,098/- and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of delivery till realization. The Supreme Court noted that both lower courts had found against the appellant-firm on this factual issue, and there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a re-examination of the evidence by the Supreme Court. 2. Proper Constitution and Limitation of the Suit: The appellant-firm contended that the suit was barred by limitation and improperly constituted as it was initially filed by the Receiver in his own name. The trial court dismissed the suit on these grounds. However, the High Court held that the Receiver was authorized to institute the suit and that the amendment to the plaint, which corrected the misdescription of the plaintiff, did not affect the limitation period. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, stating that the suit was within time as it was filed on the day the courts reopened and that the amendment was merely a case of misdescription, which could be corrected at any time without affecting the limitation period. 3. Authority of the Receiver: The appellant-firm argued that the Receiver had no right to institute the suit in his own name and was not expressly authorized by the court. The High Court found that the Receiver was authorized to collect debts and could thus institute the suit. The Supreme Court agreed, citing the Calcutta High Court's decision in Jagat Parini Dasi v. Naba Gopal Chaki, which held that a Receiver with full powers or expressly authorized by the court could sue in his own name. The Supreme Court concluded that the Receiver had the right to institute the suit, and the suit was competent as originally filed. 4. Determination of Price and Interest: The trial court determined the price of the tobacco to be Rs. 5,639-3-0 but dismissed the suit based on procedural grounds. The High Court, however, held that the agreed price was 8 annas per pound, amounting to Rs. 14,098/-, and awarded interest at 6% p.a. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decree, allowing the appeal in part, and passed a decree in favor of the respondent-firm for Rs. 5,639/3/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the transaction till realization. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's decree and awarding the respondent-firm Rs. 5,639/3/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the transaction till realization. The respondent-firm was entitled to proportionate costs throughout from the appellant-firm, which would bear its own costs.
|
