KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. versus JACOB ALEXANDER AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 01-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

} 
' 
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. 
A 
v. 
JACOB ALEXANDER AND ANR. 
MARCH 1, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Cochin Kuries Act VII of 1107-Conduct of kuries-Amount of auction 
discount to be distributed among all subscribers in proportion to their ticket 
share-Forfeited discount of non prized subscribers-To be distributed among 
subscribers who have remitted their subscriptions regularly. 
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for a direction to the State of 
Kerala as well as the appellant to pay the amount due as the plaintill's 
share from the unpaid auction discount with interest alleging that the 
defendant no. 2 was conducting a kuri and the plaintiff was a subscriber 
B 
c 
to Division A and Division B of the ticket and paid all the subscriptions D 
promptly and regularly but even after the termination of kuri he was not 
paid the proportionate share of unpaid auction discount. 
The suit was decreed. The trial Court held that under the provision 
of the Cochin Kuries Act VII of 1107, the foreman cannot claim anything E 
more than what is specifically provided in the Vaimpu and that under the 
Vaimpu the foreman can have commission only. Therefore, the amount of 
forfeited discount in respect of the non-prized subscribers should have 
been distributed among the prompt subscribers on the termination of the 
kuri. In appeal, the Division Bench formulated the question whether the 
discount forfeited by the non-prized subscribers is liable to be distributed F 
among the prompt and regular ·subscribers and referred it to the full 
Bench. 
The full Bench while confirming the judgment and decree of the trial 
court holding that the foremen has no right to retain any amount other 
than the commission or remuneration fixed under the Act and the Vaimpu G 
l\ 
and that the auction discount forfeited by the 'non-prized' subscribers also 
will have to be distributed after the termination of the kuri in proportion 
to the share of the ticket, to the subscribers who have remitted regularly 
the instalment amount till the date. This appeal was filed against the full 
Bench Judgment of the High Court. 
H 
115 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant contended that the Vaimpu which determines the 
rights of the parties, does not authorise distribution of the auction dis· 
count forfeited by the 'non-prized' subscribers. 
The respondent alleged that as the foreman is not entitled to get a 
pie more than what is provided in the Vaimpu, the reasonable conclusion 
B is that the auction discount forfeited by the 'non-prized' subscribers will 
have to be distributed among the regular subscribers on the termination 
of the kuri. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : A Foreman is only entitled to the commission as it is 
provided in the Vaimpu and i' not entitled to anything more. In view of 
the specific language used in Clause B(c) of the Vaimpu, the amount of 
auction discount has to be distributed among all the subscribers in 
proportion to their ticket share. The forfeited discount of non-prized 
D subscribers will have to be distributed among the subscribers who have 
remitted their subscriptions regularly. There is no specific provision in the 
vaimpu but since under the Cochin Kuries Act and the vaimpu the entit· 
lement of the foreman has been indicated and the foreman cannot take 
anything more than what is provided for and therefore the amount bas to 
E 
F 
be distributed among the regular subscribers. (124-A·CJ 
Shriram Chits and Investment (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1993] 
4 SCC Suppl. 226, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4169 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.95 of the Kerala High 
Court in A.S. No. 235 of 1987. 
M.N. Krishnamani and C.N. Sreekumar for the Appellant. 
G 
C. Sitaramiah and S.A. Syed for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G. B. PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted. 
H 
This appeal by the defendant no. 2 is directed against the Full Bench 
) 
) 
KER.Al.A STATE FJNANClAL ETERPRISE'Sv. JACOB ALEXANDER [G.B. PATIANAIK, J.} 
117 
Judgment of Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 235 of 1987 arising out of 0.S. A 
No. 120 of 1983. 
The plaintiff filed the suit for a direction to the State of Kerala as 
well as Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Trichur to pay the 
amount due as the plaintiffs share from the unpaid auction discount with B 
interest. The plaintiffs case in nutshell is that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.