9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 23.812 against 4 Defendants, viz, (1) The Central Hindustan Orange and Cold Storage Company, Limited. (2) The Central Hindustan Industrial Corporation, Limited, (3) S.D. Sharma, and (4) Rai Sahib Vijay Skanker Mehta. The Plaintiff alleged that on or about 12-3-1950 Defendants 3 and 4, acting on behalf of the first two Defendant, approached the Plaintiff for financial aid for floating a limited liability company at Chhindwara. After some discussion the parties are said to have come to a tentative agreement, which is to the effect that the Plaintiff would advance 3 lakhs of rupees towards the capital of the proposed public limited liability company, subject to certain conditions not necessary to be mentioned here. A sum of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 to the Plaintiff in a few days time with interest. Thus, according to the Plaintiff, the tentative agreement was terminated and the Defendants agreed to return his ₹ 25,000 advanced as aforesaid with six per cent per annum as interest. As the Defendants did not carry out the promise thus made this suit had to be instituted. The relief claimed in the plaint is that Defendants 1 and 2 are liable principally, but that if for any reasons their liability is not established Defendants 3 and 4 were personally liable for the refund of the amount with interest as claimed. 3. The first three Defendants made an application headed as under Section 34, Arbitration Act. In that application reliance was placed on Clause 8 of the document re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicated above, the Plaintiff on the one side and Defendants 1 and 2 on the other. Defendants 3 and 4 were not party to the agreement except as representing the interests of the first two Defendants. But in the plaint the Plaintiff claimed a decree not only against the first two Defendants but also against the third and the fourth Defendants in the alternative; that is to say, the third and the fourth Defendants were sued not in their representative capacity us representing the interests of the first two Defendants but in their individual capacity, and the Plaintiff claimed that if for any reasons his suit were to fail as against the first two Defendants he should get a decree personally against the third and the fourth Defendants. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as against the first two Defendants. In the instant case the claim against Defendants 3 and 4 is coextensive with the claim as against others, and therefore it cannot be said that stay should bb granted leaving the parties to their rights to be determined in the ordinary way with reference to that part of the claim which could not be stayed. It will really amount to a multiplicity of proceedings without any advantage to any of the parties concerned and at the same time introducing complications which naturally the Court will try to avoid. We would therefore rest our decision of this appeal on the ground that all the controversies raised by the plaint are not covered by the arbitration clause referred to above, giving it the widest scope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
