KISHAN LAL AND ANOTHER versus BHANW AR LAL

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 12-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• -
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
439 
It was not denied that if the present action of the 
State cannot be defended as an act of State it cannot 
be saved 
under any 
provision of law. Whether the 
State would have the right to set aside these grants in 
the ordinary Courts of the land, 
or 
whether it can 
deprive the petitioners of these properties by legislative 
process, is a matter on which we express no opinion, 
It is enough to say that its present action cannot be 
defended. Article 31 ( 1) 
of the Constitution is attracted 
as also article 19(f). The pet1t1oners are 
accordingly 
entitled to a writ under article 32(2). A writ will 
accordingly 
issue 
restraining 
the 
State 
of 
U tta r 
Pradesh from. giving efl:ect to the orders complained of 
and directing it to restore 
possession to the petitioners 
if possession has been taken. 
The petitioners will be paid their costs by the State 
of Uttar Pradesh. The intervener will bear its own. 
Writ allowed. 
KISHAN LAL AND ANOTHER 
ti. 
BHANW AR LAL. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872), s. 222-Contract of agency 
-Agent's right of indemnity against principal-Whether hit by the 
notification prohibiting forward contracts of purchase and sale of 
bullion. 
The 
respondent '" principal 
entered 
into 
several forward 
contracts for the 
purchase and sale of bullion through the appel-
lant's firm at Indore who worked as 
commission agents for the 
respondent. 
The transactions resulted in a loss and the appellants 
who had to pay the amount of loss to third parties on behalf of 
the respondent as the agents brought the suit for recovery of the 
amount in 
the 
Court in Jodhpur where the respondent resided. 
It was pleaded by the respondent that according to the law preva-
lent there as contained in the notification of the Marwar Govern-
ment dated the 3rd June, 1943, all forward 
business contracts in 
bullion in which the date fixed for delivery exceeded 12 days were 
Virendra ,)'ing/, 
and Ot..er.r 
v. 
The State of Uttar 
Pn·des/J. 
Bose}. 
.Ha;· 12. 
1S54 
Kishan Lal and 
AM•"" 
v. 
B/,anwar Lal, 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
illegal and therefore a suit on the basis of these transactions was 
not xnaintainable. 
Held, that the suit was really not one to enforce any contract 
relating to the 
purchase 
or sale 
of bullion 
which comes 
within 
the prohibition of the notification but was one by an agent claim· 
ing indemnity against 
the principal 
for 
the loss 
which the agent 
had suffered in carrying out the directions 
of 
the_ principal. 
The 
right to such indemnity was founded 
on the statutory 
provision 
contained in section 222 of the Indian Contract 
Act and the acts 
of payment made by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant were 
lawful acts 
as 
all the 
transactions took place and the payments 
\Vere n1ade outside Marwar and therefore the suit was not hit by 
the notification. 
C1v1L 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 88 of 1953. 
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of 
India from the Judgment and Order dated the 11th 
September, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature for 
the State 
of 
Rajasthan 
at 
Jodhpur in D. B. 
Civil 
Appeal (Ijlas-i-Khas) No. 6 of 1950. 
H. 
/. 
Umrigar, 
Narain 
Andley 
and Rajinder 
Narain for the appellants. 
Radlzey Lal Aggarwal and B. P. Malzeswari, for 
the respondent. 
1954. 
May 
12. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered· by 
MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal is on behalf of the 
plaintiffs and has come before us on a certificate granted 
bv the High Court of Rajasthan, under article 132(1) 
of the Constitution, on the ground that· the case in-
volves a substantial question of law as to the interpreta-
tion of the 
Constitution. The appellant has also put 
in a petition praying for leave to urge other grounds 
on the merits of the case. 
The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was brought 
by the appellants, 
as plaintiffs, on the 
16th 
August, 
1946, in the District Court I at J odhpur in Rajasthan 
against 
the 
defendant respondent, 
claiming to recover 
from the latter a sum of Rs. 10,342 annas odd together 
with interest and costs. 
The plaintiffs, at all material 
times, carried on the business of commission agents 
both at Indore and Jodhpur under the name and style 
-
--
< .. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
441 
of "Kanmal 
Kishenmal" 
and "Kanmal Surajmal" 
respectively and their cas

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