9911796707
TMI Blog1908 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and that the Bank through their agent had notice of the fraud. 2. It appeared on the evidence that there is a firm of the name of Raghunathji Tarachand which belongs to a Hindu family of which Narotamdas is an adult member and that he signed the two notes with the name of the firm. The issues framed were as set out below. 1. Whether the 1st defendant firm ever signed the promissory note annexed to the plaint. 2. Whether the 1st defendant firm is not a joint family firm carrying on business in Bombay. 3. Whether Narotamdas Gordhandas was at the time he signed the promissory note manager of the said joint family firm. 4. Whether even if manager the joint family firm is liable under the said promissory note. 5. Whether the transaction contained in the said promissory note is within the scope and purposes for which the joint family firm is carried on. 6. Whether the said promissory note was not obtained from Narotamdas Gordhandas without consideration and whether the signature of Narotamdas Gordhandas was not obtained to the said promissory note upon the false representation of one Hirabhai Ghelabhai that he would not incur responsibility in respect thereof. 7. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sometimes signed indents, he has signed for the firm when Mulchand told him to do so; he inspected the firm's books and knows the profits and losses; Mulchand is admittedly a paid servant and not a sharer or proprietor. Primarily, therefore, Narotamdas, as the eldest male member of the family and as the only member of the family and only proprietor who takes an active part in the business, has authority to sign for the firm and to use the firm's name. Indeed the facts stated show that no one else can use the firm's name now that Narotamdas is of age, except with his consent. It is not denied that Narotam signed the promissory notes in suit with the signature Raghunathji Tarachand, the signature of the firm. That being so, then as Narotam was empowered to sign for the firm, and as his own personal signature is altogether different, I hold that the notes were signed by the firm. 5. Issue 2. It is not denied that the firm is a joint family firm carrying on business in Bombay, and the evidence to prove it is ample and convincing : therefore, I find on this issue that the firm is a joint family firm. 6. Issue 3. I find that Narotamdas was manager of the joint family firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the hundis either with the firm or with Narotamdas. There is no indication that Narotamdas received anything for signing the hundis or that there was any consideration other than a promise by Hirabhai. On this point I do not wholly believe Narotamdas; there is certainly something which he will not disclose, but I can see no reason to suppose that he benefited by the notes. Fatechand Rewalchand, the broker who proposed the business to the Bank, and who was in the habit of doing business for Hirabhai, tells an absurd and impossible story about the hundis which briefly stated is that he told Hirabhai he must find a new name, that the latter suggested Raghnathji Tarachand and that after making some enquiries Patechand took two hundi forms to Narotamdas, whom he had never previously seen or known and obtained his signature to them. It is perfectly clear that Fatechand has not disclosed the true origin of the notes. Nor has Anandrao Jagannath, the hundi collector for the Bank, given at all a convincing account of what happened when, after Hirabhai was known to have committed suicide and feared to have died insolvent, he went to enquire about the maker of the promissory notes. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nglish law of partnership bodily transferred from its own domain. As Melvill J. pointed out in the case of Samalbhai v. Someshvar ILR (1889) 5 Bom. 44. "This is not the case of an ordinary partnership arising out of contract. It is the case of joint ownership in a trading business created through the operation of Hindu law between the members of an undivided Hindu family. The rights and liabilities arising out of such a relation cannot be determined by exclusive reference to the Indian Contract Act, but must be considered also with reference to the general rules of Hindu law, which regulate the transaction of united families. "But the law applicable to the commercial transactions of a firm certainly need not be the law applicable to the alienation of Immovable property. The law to be applied must vary with the nature of the property; for property of a peculiar nature has incidents and characteristics of its own. The essential basis of modern commerce is credit and when a Hindu trading firm engages in business in this city, it does so subject to the business principles of the city. As Pontifex J. said in Johurra Bibee v. Sreegopal ILR (1876) 1 Cal. 474 "persons carryi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
