1961 (10) TMI 83 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Agent for Disclosed Principal, Claims Rejected

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Appellate Court's decision that the appellant acted on behalf of a disclosed principal and was not ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant acted as an agent for a disclosed principal.2. Whether the contract was breached by the respondent.3. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim damages for breach of contract.4. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim the excess payment of Rs. 3,840.5. Admissibility and relevance of documents in determining the terms of the contract.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the appellant acted as an agent for a disclosed principal:The respondent contended that the appellant acted as an agent for its disclosed principal, Messrs. Khaitan and Sons Ltd., and thus was not entitled to bring the present suit. The trial judge found that the appellant had entered into the contract on its own account, not on behalf of the disclosed principal, stating that the reference to Khaitan and Sons Ltd. in the bought and sold notes was inserted by the brokers 'by mistake or due to some misconception.' However, the Appellate Court reversed this finding, concluding that the appellant entered into the contract on behalf of the disclosed principal. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, emphasizing that the bought and sold notes, which showed no disparity, clearly indicated that the appellant was acting on behalf of the disclosed principal. The Court rejected the appellant's argument of mistake, supported by the evidence of the brokers and the conduct of the parties.2. Whether the contract was breached by the respondent:The trial judge found that the respondent had committed a breach of the contract by failing to deliver the balance of the goods contracted for. This finding was not specifically contested in the appellate proceedings, and the focus remained on the issue of whether the appellant acted as an agent for a disclosed principal.3. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim damages for breach of contract:Given the Appellate Court's finding that the appellant acted on behalf of a disclosed principal, the appellant was not entitled to claim damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court affirmed this conclusion, stating that if the appellant acted for a disclosed principal, it could not bring the suit in its own name.4. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim the excess payment of Rs. 3,840:The trial judge held that the appellant's claim regarding the excess payment of Rs. 3,840 made by L. N. Poddar & Co. was not proved. This finding was not specifically addressed in the appellate proceedings or the Supreme Court's judgment, as the primary focus was on the agency issue.5. Admissibility and relevance of documents in determining the terms of the contract:The Appellate Court considered whether the terms of the contract could be determined solely from the bought and sold notes or whether the subsequent letters were also relevant. Das Gupta, J., held that the bought and sold notes constituted the sole basis for the terms of the contract, making the subsequent letters inadmissible. Bachawat, J., disagreed, stating that the letters were relevant and admissible. However, both judges concluded that even when considering the letters, the contract was entered into by the appellant on behalf of the disclosed principal. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the bought and sold notes clearly indicated the appellant was acting on behalf of the disclosed principal, and the subsequent letters did not alter this fact.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Appellate Court's decision that the appellant acted on behalf of a disclosed principal and thus was not entitled to bring the suit. The appellant's claims for damages and excess payment were not maintainable, and the bought and sold notes, along with the subsequent letters, clearly indicated the appellant's role as an agent for the disclosed principal. The Court directed that each party should bear its own costs.