Contractual right to cheque payment in jackpot winnings upheld where signed receipt supplemented the governing rules.

Bombay HC treated the jackpot rules and the signed receipt as written instruments capable of construction on originating summons, because the dispute turned on the documents alone and involved no complex factual controversy. It therefore found the summons maintainable and properly entertained. On payment, Rule 8 by itself did not give an enforceable right to insist on cheque payment, but Rule 8 read with the receipt created a contractual undertaking to pay the winning tickets by cheque. The special contractual mode of payment prevailed, and the claim was upheld on construction of the documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rules governing the Jackpot and the receipt issued by the club were "written instrument[s]" within the scope of the original side rule permitting construction on originating summons and whether the court should exercise its discretion to entertain the summons; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment of the jackpot winnings by cheque under Rule 8 alone or under Rule 8 read with the receipt issued by the defendants.

Issue (i): whether the rules governing the Jackpot and the receipt issued by the club were "written instrument[s]" within the scope of the original side rule permitting construction on originating summons and whether the court should exercise its discretion to entertain the summons.

Analysis: The rules formed part of the contractual terms governing the betting transaction, and the receipt signed by both sides embodied the arrangement for payment in respect of the winning tickets. A document need not be a deed or will to be a written instrument if rights and liabilities arise under it. The matter involved no disputed facts of complexity and turned on construction of the relevant documents alone, so there was no reason to decline jurisdiction on procedural grounds.

Conclusion: The originating summons was maintainable and was properly entertained.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment of the jackpot winnings by cheque under Rule 8 alone or under Rule 8 read with the receipt issued by the defendants.

Analysis: Rule 8 by itself did not confer on the investor an enforceable right to insist on payment by cheque; it only permitted cheque payment where the defendants chose to accede to a request. The receipt, however, was construed as an agreement by which the defendants accepted the winning tickets and undertook to pay the aggregate dividends by cheque. The argument based on legal tender failed because the case turned on the special contractual mode of payment, not on a compulsory rule of discharge in money. The fact that each ticket yielded less than the stated threshold did not defeat the claim because the old rule referred to the aggregate dividends on the successful vouchers or slips.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to cheque payment under Rule 8 alone, but was entitled to cheque payment under Rule 8 read with the receipt.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was resolved in favour of the plaintiff on the construction of the documents, and the defendants were bound to honour the cheque payment arrangement and pay the costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contractual rules reserve an option as to mode of payment and the parties subsequently execute a signed receipt embodying an agreement for cheque payment, the combined documents may create an enforceable contractual obligation to pay by cheque according to their special terms.

---