9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and proprietor of Sai Autos and defendant No. 4 is Mr. Bollam Venkatramaiah. Sai Autos are stated to have been dealers at Karim Nagar (Andhra Pradesh) for the sale of Ford Tractors made by the plaintiff-company. It is the case of the plaintiff-company that Mr. Charanjit Singh, who has signed and verified the plaint, is the principal officer, as also the vice-president and secretary of the plaintiff-company, and is authorised to sign, verify the plaint and file the present suit, and to prosecute the same on behalf of the plaintiff-company in terms of the general power of attorney dated January 28, 1966, granted to him by the plaintiff-company, and registered in the books and records of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi at No. 164 in Additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y again for the tractor, which he had admittedly paid for to defendants Nos. 1 to 3, by passing a decree against him. Counsel for the plaintiff, very fairly, gave up this claim made against defendant No. 4. The claim against defendant No. 4, in this suit, is, therefore, dismissed. Inasmuch as the power of attorney which is relied upon by the plaintiff-company, executed on the 28th day of January, 1966, by Mrs. Raj Nanda and Sodhi Karta Singh and execution whereof was admitted before the Registrar of Assurances, it was asserted that power to institute suit stands proved. During the course of arguments, which were heard ex parte, I pointed out to counsel that the presumption as to due execution of the power of attorney was available only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution No. 5 passed in the meeting of the board of directors of Escorts Ltd. (plaintiff) held on 16th October, 1965, was placed on record, and this was not enough, the original minutes book containing resolution No. 5 dated October 16, 1965, was brought to court. I saw the original minutes book. It contains the aforesaid resolution No. 5 dated October 16, 1965. This resolution approves the draft power of attorney which was proposed to be granted. The manner of proving the said resolution which has been adopted by the plaintiff is an affidavit of Mr. P. N. Arora, son of Mr. Lekh Raj, being affidavit dated March 22, 1990. In that affidavit, it is stated that the minutes of the board of directors have been written in the hand of Ms. Amarjit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiff-company, who can as such officer, sign and verify the plaint in suit, and he is also authorised to institute this suit by virtue of the power of attorney dated January 28, 1966. The next question that arises is what amount is due from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to the plaintiff-company. For this purpose, copies of accounts have been produced by the plaintiff-company. Copies of the accounts produced by the plaintiff-company deal with the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3. In none of the affidavits filed by the plaintiff, have these accounts been proved in accordance with the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, which sets out the manner in which any person can be charged with liability on accounts, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 3 sent the cheques for Rs. 1,06,000 being the cheque dated July 31, 1966, for the purpose of liquidating the amount due, which has been received from defendant No. 4 by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but had not been paid to the plaintiff. The said cheque was dishonoured when presented, and has been filed along with the documents, and has been proved by, the affidavit of Mr. J.L. Chawla dated March 22, 1990. The dishonoured cheque is on record, and is marked as exhibit PW-2/6. The memo of dishonour is exhibit PW2/5. Counsel for the plaintiff states that after this cheque was dishonoured, further, a reference was made to defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 about the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 1,06,000. In lieu of the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 1,06,000, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereof the amount is payable with interest at the rate of 1.5% per mensem which comes to 18% per annum. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for Rs. 1,06,000 against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and by virtue of the agency agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, the aforesaid unpaid amount is payable by the defendants to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The tractor in question was supplied to defendant No. 4 on January 10, 1986. Defendant No. 4 has paid the amount to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of supply of the tractor till, realisation of the price of the same. In this view of the matter, I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
