LexPRATAPRAY MANMOHANDAS versus BOMBAY BULLION ASSOCIATION LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
•
a s.c.R. SUPREl\lE COURT REPORTS
~ ' I
541
1962
k ·
We therefore see no reason to interfere
wor men.
·.
t
with the order of the tribunal in this respec ·
We therefore allow the appe~ls .in par~ and
dismiss them in part in the manner md1?ated m the
course· of this judgment.
In . the mrcumstances
parties will bear their own costs m both the appeals.
Managtment of the
D. c. M. Chmiical
Works
Appeals allowed in part.
PRATAPRAY MANMOHANDAl::i ·
v.
BOMBAY BULLION AS~OCIATION LTD.
(J. L. KAPUR, K. 0. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR
.
DAYAL, JJ.)
Bullion Association-Member owing amount to creditor-
Pailure to submit Kapli (voucher)
for
amount -
Committee
declaring him a defaulter-Legality of -Giving of opportunity
to •ubmit Kapli if denied-Bombay Bullion . Asaociation Bye
Laws 155 (4).
The appellant was a
member of the Bombay
Bullion
Association Ltd.
He entered into certain forward transactions
with certain other persons.
According to the bye-laws of the
Association the appellant had to submit a balance sheet and
to give kaplis (vouchers) for the amounts
due from him, but
the appellant did not include the amounts due from him in
the balance sheet nor did he give the kaplis on the ground
that these transactions were
fictitious and illegal.
On the
settlement day the Clearance House committee called upon
the appellant to appear before them.
Before the Committee
the appellant took the stand that they had no jurisdiction to
proceed with the matter as he was claiming arbitration. Th
committee passed a resolution declaring him a defaultere
The: appellant filed a suit challenging the resolution. inter alia.
on the ground that the
Committee, after
its decision, was
bound, under bye-law 155 (4) to give him an opportunity to
give the kaplis before it could declare him a defaulter.
The
bye-law provided:-
v.
Tluir W •rkm1n
Wonohoo J,
1962
March 2.
196t
PrJtdpr_,iy
.~l anmohond as
v.
Bomb<!Y Bullion
AuociotiOA lJd.
Kop.,J.
542 SUPREME COUB.T REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
«Jf any member docs not submit a kapli in the prescri-
bed form in respect of the amount found cla1mable from him
to hi; party (creditor), the Clearing Ho"se Commi!lee shall
call him and demand an explanatio;i from him and can there
after, if such a kapli is not submitted the
Clearing House
Committee can declare him a defaulter."
lltld, that the resolution declaring the appellant a defa-
ulter was ,·alidly passed.
Bye-la,. 155 (4) provides that if a
member did not submit a kapli found clai.nable
from him,
the Committee shall cal\ him and demand an
explanation
from him and can thereafter if such
kapfi is
not submitted
declare him a defaulter.
Under this bye- law first the expla-
nation is rall('d and after it is given
and some
decision is
arrived at 1 the person complained against can file the kapl-i,
but no specific period is
prescribed
for doing so nor is the
Com1ni1trc required to call him for this purpose. ·rhe period
of titne depends upon the circumstances in each C"\se.
In the
present case since the appellant had
made it clear before
the Committee that he ,,·as not going to
make the payment,
the giviug of time was wholly unnecessary.
It is not a requirement of the bye-law that the clearing
House Committee should call the person
defaulting by tele-
phone or by letter or by giving him notice.
Crv11. .APP}~LLATE Jmus1>ICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 437/60.
Appeal by special le&ve
from the
and decree dated July 12, 1957, of the
:sigh Court in Appeal No. 71 of 1956.
judgment
Bombay
C. K. Da)lhtary,
Soliciwr
General of India,
S. G. Patwardhan and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
A. V. Vi.rwanatha Sa.~tri, N. P. NatJiwani and
K. L. flat/ti, for respondent No. I.
1962. ;\farch 2. The Judgment
of the Court
was delivered by
KAPUR. J.-This is an appeal
against the
judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay
con firming the decree passed in its original juris·
diction.
The appPllant. who waA the plaintiff in
the suit, was trading under the name and style of
3 s.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 543
Messrs.
Pratapray Manmohandas
as a
bnllion
merchant and trader in Bombay. He was a member
of the Bombay Bullion Association
Ltd.,
which
was defen<:lant No. 1 in the suit and is respondent
No. l in
the appeal.
Respondents 2 to 7 were
defendants 2 to 7 and at all material times were
members of the Clearing House Committee appoint-
ed under the Bye-laws of the lst resExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.