LexRADHAKRISHNA SIVADUTTA RAI AND ORS. versus TAYEBALLI DAWOODBHAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
81
High Court by the Banking Companies Act, 1949
( X of 1949) is pa.rt of its ordinary civil jurisdiction
within the meaning of Art. 183 of the Limitation
Act, and an order passed in exercise of its ordinary
Original Civil Jurisdiction is governed by Art. 183
and not by Art. 182 of the Limitation Act. In
that case on an application
preferred by the
Official Liquidator of the Hanuman Bank Ltd., a
direction for payment by the High Conrt of
certain sums of money by the appellant Munia on
or before a certain date was made. To an appli-
cation for enforcement of that liability Art. 183 of
the Limitation Act was held applicable.
In our view, the High Court was right in
holding that the application for execution filed by
the Official Liquidator was within limitation. The
appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismi&sed.
RADHAKRISHNA SIVADUTTA RAI AND ORS.
v.
TAYEBALLI DAWOODBHAI
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJJ\]NDRAGADKAR
and RAGHUJIAR DAYAt, JJ.)
Bread/, of coritract-Buit for damages-Broker•' bought and
sold notea, if and when constitute terms of the comract-Commer-
cial U8(l{le-Conlract on behalf af discloBPJl partner-Maintainabi-
lity of •uit-lndian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), s. 230. ·
The appellant sued the respondent for
damages for
breach of contract. The respondent pleaded .that the app•
ellant had contra~ted as agent for its disclosed principal and
had no right to sue. The bought and sold notes issued by
the brokers 1howed that the appellant had entered into ihe
contract on account of the disclosed principal; but in the
confirmation slips and subsequent letters exchanged between
the parties no reference
was made to the principal nor
did the appcllan!J describe themselves as acting or signing on
his behalf.
H eU, that it is well established in commercial usage
1h~t the bought and sold notes issued by the brows, where
1961
J.yqti Bhushan Gupl4
v.
Tiu Banartu Bonk
Ltd.
Shah J.
1901
0&10/ur 13.
1961
lfa1Mt1Ul&na
Siwz.d11Jt~ Rai
••
Td7tballi
D11U'OlH/bluii
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962] SUPP· 1
there is no \'ariation or disparity between them, constitute th~
contract that 1nust bind the parti~5.
But where the bought and sold notes show material varia-
tions, neither of them nor both of thrm taken together can be
relied upon for proving the terms of the contract.
Since there was 110 di!parity in the instant ca!C bct\vccn
,.
the two note< which specifically mentioned the appellants as
acting on account of the disclosed partner, it mu't be l:cld
that the appellants had entered into the contract on behalf of
the disclosed partner and as such \\'as not entitled to sue.
Coirie v. Rarnfr!f, (1846) 3 Moo. I. A. 448, Siweinrighl
v. Archibald, I 1851) 117 E.R. 122 I, Ah Shain Shoke v. MoolJ.ia
Chetly (1899) L. R. 27 I. A. 30 and Gadd v. l/oughton '.1871i)
I Ex. D. 357, referred to.
Held, further, that in deciding whether or not the a~ent
had entered into the contract on behalf of the principal, the
way he signed the document must be considered in the light of
the recitals in the r~Jcvant document.
In the instant rase, the
letters and the confirmation slips must be read in the light of
the bought and sold notes and presumed to be consistent with
th~m and it would, therefore, be unreasonable to attach undue
importance to the signature or how the parties described
themselves.
CrvH, APPELT.AT!~ JvRISllICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 212 of 1959.
Appll<'\I from the judgment and d<'cr1>e datecl
March 1, 1957, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal
from Original Decree No. 71 of 1954.
G. S. Patluik and ;Vaunit Lal, for the appellants.
A. I'. Visuunatha Sa•tri, S. N. Andley, Ram.esh-
wai- Nath and l'. L. Vohra; for the respondent.
1961. October 13. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
G<j1114rai•"= J.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by '.1 certi-
ficate granted by the Calcutta High Court arises
out of a suit filed by tho three appellants against
the respondent to recover Rs. 83,640/-. The three
appellants are raspeotivcly the Firm Radhakishan
Shivdutt Rai which carries on business at Banaras
and Ramknmar Lal for himself and aa karta of his
joint family as well as Marian Gopal for himRelf
anrl as karta of his joint family, the latter two being
•
..
J
I
(I) s.c.R.
SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS
8 3
the partners in the first-mentioned Firm Radha-
krishna Sivadutta Rai; for convenience wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.