1968 (12) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tatement, an objection was taken that, on the above averments of the plaintiff, the suit was not entertainable by the City Civil Court and reliance was placed, apparently, in the written statement, upon Clauses (iv) and (v) of Item 4 of the First Schedule of the said Act, referred to hereinbefore. 3. The matter appears to have been argued before the learned trial Judge, more emphatically under Clause (v) and reference to Clause (iv) is not to be found in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Under Clause (v) the suit, in order to come within the said Clause of Item 4 of the First Schedule, must be a suit, exceeding Rs. 5,000 in value, "relating to or arising out of transactions of mercantile agents, as defined in the Indian Sale of Go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is not disputed by the plaintiff--and. indeed, that is admitted in his plaint, --that he was a commission agent by profession. It is not also disputed that he was appointed by the defendant a commission agent for sale of the goods in question. The learned trial Judge had held that as this appointment was under a contract, the plaintiif's authority to sell the goods must be held to have arisen out of that contract, and accordingly, he could not be held to have, in the customary course of business, as agent, as aforesaid, authority to sell the goods and, upon that footing, he cannot be held to be a mercantile agent. 6. We are unable to accept this conclusion of the learned trial Judge. The mere fact that there was a contract of ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss, for example, sale on commission. In this view, we would hold that the plaintiff opposite party was a mercantile agent, as required by Clause (v) of Item 4 of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act. The transactions in question were also transections of the plaintiff as mercantile agent vis-a-vis the defendant, who was the principal. In this context, the said transactions may well be regarded as coming within the description "transactions of mercantile agents" as required under the said Clause (v). It is not necessary for that purpose that both the parties must be mercantile agents. Such a construction would unnecessarily whittle down the scope of the Item. It is enough if the suit is in respect of a claim, arising between the me....