9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 4,262/-which represented the price and other charges of the goods which were consigned and the other was for ₹ 3,000/-. The bank was instructed to present these Hundis to the plaintiff at Ratangarh and in case they were honoured it was to endorse the railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff and to deliver it. The Hundis were duly honoured by the plaintiff and the railway receipt was delivered. The objection of the plaintiff with regard to the price charged by the defendant was with regard to a sum of ₹ 1-1-0 only. The defendant accepted the objection and credited the plaintiff with this sum. One hundred fifty bags of Jowar were purchased by the defendant in the presence of Banshi Dhar, but they were not despatched. Fifty bags of Jowar were also purchased by the defendant after Banshi Dhar had left. These bags of Jowar were however not sent to Ratangarh for several days. In the meantime the price of Jowar fell. The plaintiff sent instructions to the defendant to sell the Jowar. He instituted the present suit in the court of the Civil judge Ratangarh for the recovery of the balance due to him out of the sum of ₹ 3,001-1-0 lying to his credit with the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the law so far as suits based on contract are concerned, (b) that every suit by a principal against a commission agent is substantially a suit for rendition of accounts which can only be instituted at the place where the latter carries on business, and (c) that to hold otherwise would cause great inconvenience to commission agents. Taking ground (a) first the decision in the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Aziz, AIR 1924 Rang 2 may be regarded as the leading case representative of this view. 3. Section 17 of the Code of 1882 ran as follows: Subject to the limitations aforesaid, all other suits shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits, of whose jurisdiction (a) the cause of action arises; or (b) all the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain; or (c) any of the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain: Provided that either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business or personally work fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiff will be bound to prove that the debt was assigned in his favour by the assignor and therefore the assignment is itself a part of the cause of action within the meaning of Section 20(c), C. P. C. according to which the suit can be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises and that therefore a court in whose territorial jurisdiction the assignment of debt has taken place, is competent by virtue of Section 20(c), C. P. C. to entertain and decide a suit by the assignee for the recovery of the debt. With regard to the case of AIR 1924 Ran 2 which came up for consideration it was observed that Section 20 should be read as it stands at present and it cannot be read as if Explanation III to Section 17 of the Code of 1882 which was omitted was still there. 9. In view of the above Division Bench decision of this Court the main ground on which the cases relied upon by the learned single Judge were based is no longer tenable so far as this Court is concerned. 10. Coming now to ground (b) the cause of action in a suit for rendition of accounts is different from the cause of action in a suit for recovery of money b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the receipt to the plaintiffs until and unless the price of the goods was paid. The defendants supplied goods to the value of ₹ 10,000/- and the plaintiffs brought a suit in Delhi for the recovery of ₹ 1716-8-0. It was held that a part of the cause of action arose at Delhi and the court at Delhi had jurisdiction to decide the case. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that as the relationship between the parties to this litigation was that of principal and agent the present suit must be instituted at the place where the commission agent carries on his business. Reliance was placed on a decision of the same Court in Bhamboo Mal v. Ram Narain, AIR 1928 Lah 297. The learned Chief Justice observed: The provisions in regard to the place of trial are embodied in Section 20, Civil P. C. which declares that every suit shall be instituted either in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The expression cause of action means every fact which, if traverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance was placed on the following observations made by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South v. Messrs, Ogale Glass Works Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 429: There can be no doubt that as between the sender and the addressee it is the request of the addressee that the cheque be sent by post that makes the post office the agent of the addressee. After such request the addressee cannot be heard to say that the post office was not his agent and, therefore, the loss of the cheque in transit must fall on the sender on the specious plea that the sender having the very limited right to reclaim the cheque under the Post Office Act, 1898, the Post Office was his agent, when in fact there was no such reclamation. Of course, if there be no such request, express or implied, then the delivery of the letter or the cheque to the post office is delivery to the agent of the sender himself. 15. The above observations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here the bank was throughout acting tinder the instructions of the defendant, the goods were consigned by the defendant to self and the railway receipt was endorsed in favour of the bank at Ratanga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
