9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties entered into an agreement in writing for the supply by the sellers, the respondents, to the buyer, the appellant, of 5,000 maunds of maize 500 maunds of wheat and 100 maunds of Dal at the rates and times specified. The agreement stated that on the date it had been made the buyer had paid to the sellers Rs. 3,000 and had agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000 within ten or twelve days as advance and the balance due for the price of goods delivered, after the expiry of every month. It is admitted that the said sum of Rs. 10,000 was latter paid by the buyer to the sellers. 3. Various quantities of goods were thereafter delivered by the sellers to the buyer and though such deliveries had not been made strictly at the times speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. If the article applied the suit would be clearly within time as the last item found to have been entered in the account was on June 23, 1947. The only question argued at the bar is whether the account between the parties was mutual. 7. The question what is a mutual account, has been considered by the courts frequently and the test to determine it is well settled. The case of the Tea Financing Syndicate Ltd. v. Chandrakamal Bezbaruah I.L.R (1930) Cal. 649, may be referred to. There a company had been advancing monies by way of loans to the proprietor of a tea estate and the proprietor had been sending tea to the company for sale and realisation of the price. In a suit brought by the company against the proprietor of the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same test as that laid down by Rankin, C.J. They however came to the conclusion that the account between the parties was mutual for the following reasons : The point then reduces itself to the fact that the defendant company had advanced a certain amounts of money to the plaintiffs for the supply of grains. This excludes the question of monthly payments being made to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs having received a certain amount of money, they became debtors to the defendant company to this extent, and when the supplies exceeded Rs. 13,000 the defendant company became debtors to the plaintiff and later on when again the plaintiff's supplies exceeded the amount paid to them, the defendants again became the debtors. This would show t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the contract. It was paid under the terms of the contract which was to buy goods and pay for them. It did not itself create any obligation on the sellers in favour of the buyer; it was not intended to be and did not amount to an independent transaction detached from the rest of the contract. The sellers were under an obligation to deliver the goods but that obligation arose from the contract and not from the payment of the advance alone. If the sellers had failed to deliver goods, they would have been liable to refund the monies advanced on account of the price and might also have been liable in damages but such liability would then have arisen from the contract and not from the fact of the advances having been made. Apart from such fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
