1969 (8) TMI 94 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to payment by cheque under Rule 8 of the "Rules for the Jackpot."
2. Entitlement to payment by cheque based on the specific circumstances and events.
3. Determination of costs.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Payment by Cheque under Rule 8 of the "Rules for the Jackpot":

The plaintiff sought determination on whether he is entitled to a payment of Rs. 10,462.50 by cheque under Rule 8 of the "Rules for the Jackpot." The defendants argued that Rule 8 does not mandate payment by cheque but merely provides an option to make such payments if the dividends are Rs. 5,000 or more. The court examined Rule 8, which states, "Dividends on the successful vouchers or slips will be paid in accordance with the provisions of Totalizator Rule No. 9." Totalizator Rule No. 9 outlines the procedure for cash payments but allows for cheque payments at the investor's request if the dividends are Rs. 5,000 or more. The court concluded that Rule 8 does not confer an absolute right to payment by cheque but allows the defendants the option to make such payments. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to payment by cheque solely under Rule 8.

2. Entitlement to Payment by Cheque Based on Specific Circumstances and Events:

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had exercised their option to pay by cheque through a document (Exh. A) received on January 2, 1969, which stated the winning tickets were received "for payment by cheque." The court analyzed this document and concluded that it constituted an agreement between the parties. The document, signed by both the plaintiff and the defendants' representatives, indicated that the defendants had agreed to make payment by cheque. The court held that this agreement formed a special term of the contract, obligating the defendants to honor the payment by cheque. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to payment by cheque based on the agreement evidenced by Exh. A.

3. Determination of Costs:

The court addressed the issue of costs, noting that the plaintiff had to take legal action to enforce his right to payment by cheque. The court held that the defendants should bear the costs of the originating summons. The costs were quantified at Rs. 600, which the defendants were ordered to pay to the plaintiff.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to payment by cheque solely under Rule 8 of the "Rules for the Jackpot," but he is entitled to such payment based on the agreement evidenced by Exh. A. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff Rs. 10,462.50 by cheque and also to bear the costs of Rs. 600.