Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1937 (8) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents, Hokarmal, was at Sonpat he entered into an agreement with the defendants at Sonpat on behalf of his principal for the sale of grain and cotton seed. The arrangement was this: the plaintiff was to send the defendants consignments of these goods from time to time from Khamgaon; the defendants were to keep these goods with them and await instructions from the plaintiff about the sale; then as soon as the plaintiff gave them the word they were to sell and in due course hand over the sale proceeds to the plaintiff less their commission charges: the money however as not to be paid at Khamgaon but at Delhi. These are the facts found by the Appellate Court and must of course be accepted here. They are not disputed except as regards the place .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... npat and that the money was to be paid at Delhi. None of these ingredients invest the Court at Khamgaon with jurisdiction. Then is there anything else which does? To determine that we must first ascertain the nature of the suit. 2. The defendants, as I have said, were employed by the plaintiff to sell goods for them as commission agents and so at first sight would appear to come within the definition of agent given in S. 182, Contract Act. In that event the suit would of course be by a principal against his agent, and at one time I thought it was a suit for accounts, at any rate, so far as the primary relief is concerned. If that were so, then the place where the accounts were to be rendered would be an important ingredient in the cause .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with interest on the other side of the account; so that the read transaction between the parties is for the consignor to treat such consignee as creditor for his advances and interest and to regard him as debtor for the amount received and interest. 4. Similar remarks founded on the same case are to be found in Bowstead on Agency 8th Edn., p. 152 and also in Story on Agency, p. 305. The Contract Act, it is true, does not draw this fine distinction! between different classes of agents but the-Act is not exhaustive and so far as this parts of the law is concerned it merely lays down general principles in wide and general terms. For instance the definition of agent given in S. 182 is wide enough to embrace a servant pure and simple, even a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n agent when he sells have authority to sell in his own name? Has he authority in his own right to pass a valid title? If he has then he is acting as a principal vis-a-vis the purchasers and not merely as an agent and therefore from that point on he is a debtor of his erstwhile principal and not merely an agent. Whether this is so or not must of course depend upon the facts in each particular case. It may be that these terms will be found to exist in most commission agency cases, but again there may be cases in which they are absent and in which the relation of principal and agent continues to the end. Therefore my observations must not be carried beyond the facts of this case. 6. So far as this case is concerned, we know that the plaint .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the fact that the defendants were themselves grain and seed merchants actually running a shop, I am clear that the understanding between the parties was that the defendants were to sell the grain and cotton seed in their own right and be responsible to the plaintiff as debtors for the sale-proceeds less their agency charges. 7. Once that is accepted, then the relationship of principal and agent ceases and the plaintiff's right to claim an accounting as a principal against his agent goes. In that case the accounting qua accounting is no part of the cause of action. I do not say that it is relevant. I do not say that the defendants would not fail if they omitted to produce their accounts. They might in conceivable circumstances, even .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates