TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of plaintiff firm in share transaction dispute, awards Rs. 13,362 with interest.</h1> <h3>Sohanlal Pachisia & Co. Versus Bilasray Khemani and Ors.</h3> The court found that the plaintiff firm acted as a principal in a share transaction with the defendants, entitling them to require performance and enforce ... - Issues Involved:1. Principal or Broker2. Entitlement to Require Performance and Enforce Liability3. Extension of Delivery Date4. Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract5. Joint Family or Partnership Business6. Registration under Indian Partnership Act7. Maintainability of Suit due to Plaint Signature8. Relief EntitlementIssue No. 1: Principal or BrokerThe plaintiff firm claimed they acted as a principal in the transaction of 4,000 shares of Barakar Coal Co. Ltd. with the defendants. Evidence, including the Daily Transaction Book, Share Ledger, and Party Ledger Book, supported this claim. The defendants failed to produce any books of account to counter this, alleging their records were stolen by a deceased family member. The court found this explanation unconvincing and presumed the missing documents would be unfavorable to the defendants. Correspondence and a post-dated cheque further supported the plaintiff's principal role. Despite some indications the plaintiff might have acted as a broker, the court concluded that the plaintiff firm acted as a principal with the defendants' knowledge and consent.Issue No. 2(a) and 2(b): Entitlement to Require Performance and Enforce LiabilityThe court held that the plaintiff firm, being registered and having all partners shown in the Register of Firms at the time of the contract and the cause of action, was entitled to require performance and enforce liability. The firm was properly registered one day before the suit was filed, satisfying Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.Issue No. 3: Extension of Delivery DateThe plaintiff firm claimed the delivery date was extended to 20th December 1944. This was supported by a letter dated 20th December 1944, which recorded contemporaneous facts and was not disputed by the defendants at the time. The court found the plaintiff's account credible and held that the delivery date was indeed extended to 20th December 1944.Issue No. 4(a) and 4(b): Readiness and Willingness to Perform ContractThe plaintiff firm demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, evidenced by attempts to get delivery on the due and extended dates, and their immediate purchase of the shares in the market on 21st December 1944. The court found the plaintiff firm was at all times ready to pay for the shares and perform their contractual obligations.Issue No. 5: Joint Family or Partnership BusinessThe court was not satisfied that the defendants were members of a joint family or carried on a joint business. The evidence suggested that the defendant Bilasrai Khemani was separate from the other defendants. Consequently, the court held that the suit could proceed against Bilasrai Khemani alone.Issue No. 6: Registration under Indian Partnership ActThe court found the plaintiff firm was properly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, despite some discrepancies in the Register of Firms. The registration on 5th September 1945, one day before the suit, was valid. Any incorrect entries could be rectified under Section 64 of the Act, but this did not invalidate the suit.Issue No. 7: Maintainability of Suit due to Plaint SignatureThe court held that the suit was maintainable even though not all partners signed the plaint. The correct procedure, as per Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was followed, allowing the suit to be brought in the firm's name.Issue No. 8: Relief EntitlementThe court rejected the defendants' argument that no damages could be awarded due to lack of evidence of the market rate on the extended delivery date. The plaintiff's evidence of the market rate was accepted. However, the court disallowed the plaintiff's claim for extra brokerage and interest, reducing the total claim to Rs. 13,362/8/-. A decree was passed in favor of the plaintiff firm for this amount with interest at 6% per annum against defendant Bilasrai Khemani. The suit was dismissed against the other defendants, who were awarded one day's hearing costs.Conclusion:The court decreed Rs. 13,362/8/- in favor of the plaintiff firm with 6% interest against defendant Bilasrai Khemani, dismissing the suit against the other defendants with costs awarded for one day's hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
