9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to record such an agreement. It is further the case of the plaintiff that under an oral agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs. 20,000/- to defendant 1 in December 1981 and defendant I handed over the possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff to run the business in the suit shop in his own name for his own benefit. According to the plaintiff, he started his own business in the suit shop on and from 8-1-1982 with a formal opening ceremony. According to the plaintiff, he applied to the Ahmedabad Hotel Owners Association to become a member of the Association. He was duly enrolled as a member on payment of requisite entrance fee and annual subscription. The plaintiff further stated that he purchased necessary furniture, utensils and other articles for the suit shop. He also made purchases from time to time from different shops to buy materials such as food grains, vegetables, oil, coal, soft drinks and other things required for running the, business in the suit shop. According to the plaintiff, when the business picked up, defendant I became envious and he tried to take back the suit shop from the plaintiff. Defendant I employed all available means to take back the suit shop from the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of this case. The plaintiff has produced Exs. 18/1 to 18/19 which are bills, vouchers, receipts, circular letter, etc. All these documents are in the name of the plaintiff and the name of the shop is stated to be New Mysore Cafe, i.e., the suit shop. The said bills, vouchers etc., are in respect of food grains, vegetables, spices, crockery, coal, oil, soft drinks, etc., which were used in running the hotel business in the suit shop. Ex. 18/18 is a receipt issued by Ahmedabad Hotel Owners Association in the name of the plaintiff and is in respect of the suit shop. It is a receipt of Rs. 132/- comprising of Rs. 101/as entrance fees and Rs. 31/- as annual membership subscription. It is dated 18-9-1982. Ex. 18/19 is a circular letter dated 1-12-1982 addressed to the plaintiff sent at the address of the suit shop informing him that the annual general meeting of the Association was to be held at Picnic House, Kankaria, Ahmedabad, on 22-12-1982 at 4.00 p.m. The plaintiff has also relied on Exs. M/20 to M/26 for the purpose of showing that he (plaintiff) was running the business in the suit shop as a proprietor. The plaintiff has also produced on the record of the case a medical certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the fact that the licences of the suit shop are in the name of defendant 1. This circumstance also does not prima facie show that defendant I was running the business. It seems to be a part of strategy of defendant I that not only he did not execute any writing in favour of the plaintiff regarding the transfer of business in the suit shop, but also he kept the licences in his own name. This argument does not advance the case of defendant I any further. There is considerable force in the submission of Mr. Deshmukh that defendant 1 has taken unfair advantage of his own wrong in not executing any writing regarding the transfer of business in the suit shop to the plaintiff, and not passing receipt for Rs. 20,000/received and keeping the licences in his own name. Mr. Deshmukh has also urged that defendant 1 has resorted to all illegal and foul means to deprive the plaintiff of his possession of the shop including getting the plaintiff beaten up physically and forcibly taking away furniture, utensils and other articles. This circumstance of defendant 1 taking away the articles from the suit shop goes strongly against him and clearly shows that he was not in possession of the suit sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant I has, tried to take advantage of his own wrong in not executing a proper document of transfer and keeping licences in his own name. Moreover, defendant I has resorted to all possible means fair and foul to throw out the plaintiff from the suit shop by getting him physically beaten up and furniture and other articles removed from the suit shop in the most flagrant violation of law and civilized behaviour. His contention that the plaintiff was working as his manager is prima facie untenable. From the material before the Court at this stage this is only a prima facie finding. It will be open to the parties to lead evidence and to prove their respective contentions. Therefore the observations made hereinabove will not be taken to have given any finding of fact. At this stage, only the question of the prima facie case made out by the parties is gone into. 6. Mr. Deshmukh has contended that prima facie the plaintiff has been able to establish that he was lawfully conducting the business in the suit shop under an oral agreement and that he was forcibly dispossessed. Subsequently the possession was ordered by the Small Cause Court to be given to the Receiver. Hence, today the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
