LexSETH GULABCHAND versus SETH KUDILAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... " ,. ' • ' ' .. D E F G H SETH GULABCHAND '· SETH KUDILAL AND OTHERS February 22, 1966 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. S!KRI, JJ.] 623 Contract Act 1872, s. 23-Suit for specific performance of agre.ement- Finding that consideration for agreement was a bribe-Whether such finding required to be based on proof as In a criminal ca.re-Whether 1. 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies same standard of proof in all civil cases. G was one of a number of partners in a firm which carried on the business of acting as Managing Agents and Selling Agents of a company owning a textile mill in Indore. Serious disputes arose between tho part- ners and soon thereafter the Directcmo of the managed company appoint- ed a committee in November 1940, of which the appellant was a mem- ber, to inquire into certain allegations made against G and two other part- ners of the managing agency firm. In February 1941, G entered into an agreement with the appellant to sell to him a share in the partnership wblch was to be transferred to G by virtue of an arbitration award on the disputes between the partners. In April 1941, the committee gave its final report which was favourable to G although the interim report of December 1940 had not been 10 favourable. Upon G failing to transfer the share in the partnership as provided in the agreement of February 1941, the appellant filed a suit against the heirs and legal representatives of G for specific performance of the agree- ment. The High Court decreed the appellant's suit, but on appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court, the decree was set aside. A further appeal to the Full Bench of the High Court was dismissed. Both the Dhi- 1wn Bench and the Full Bench held that the agreement to sell a •hare in the partnership was a bribe offered by G to the appellant to write a report favourable to him. In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appel- lant, inter alia, that there was no evidence in support of the finding relati•g to l>ribery arrived at by the Full Bench and that the said finding WaJ based on mere surmises; that the Full Bench had misdirected itself in not adopt· ing a strict standard of proof and that where bribery is alleged in a civil case, the same standard of proof should be required as in a criminal case; that in case of c'.rcumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be such so as to exclude any other reasonable possibility and that if this principle was applied to the present case, the finding of bribery must be reversed as the facts were equally consistent with the appellant having acted honestly; and that immorality witbln Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act is confined to sexual immorality. HELD : On the facts, the Full Bench did not rely on any surmiseo and its findings were not vitiated. It is clear from Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act that the •ame standard of proof applies in all civil cases. It makes no difference bet- ween cases in \Vhich charges of a fraudulent or criminal character are made 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966) 3 S.C.R. and cases in which such charges are not made. But this is not to say A that the Coun will not, while striking the balance of probability, keep in mind the presumption of honesty or innocence or the nature of the crime or fraud charged. (629 0-H] Weston v. Peary Mohan Dass (1913), I.L.R. 40 Cal. 898 at 916: disapproved. Jara/ Kumari Da.rsi v. Bissesur : l.L.R. 39 Cal. 245 and Prasannamayl Debya v. Baikuntlra Nath Chattoraj: I.L.R. 49 Cal. 132; referred to. It cannot be said that rules applicable to circumstantial evidence in criminal cases would apply where a party, in a civil case, ;s alleged to have accepted a bribe. The ordinary rules governing civil cases will con- tinue to apply. (630 E] Rafa Si11gh v. Chachoo Singh : A.I.R., 1940 Patna 210; referred to. It was unn=ary to consider whether the consideration for the &ifCO- ment of February 1941 was immoral or not. The ca.se ol bribery i.o covered otherwise by Section 23 of the Contract Act (630 OJ c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 795 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 24, 1958, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at D Indore in Civil Special Appeal No. 5 of 1949. C. B. Agamala, J. D. Patel, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. M. P. Amin, C. B. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.