COL. (RETD.) DALIP SINGH SACHAR Vs. MAJOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,89,364.49P. against the appellant herein. It was pleaded that the respondent and the appellant were close friends as they were course mates in the same squadron in the National Defence Academy during the period 1954-57. Another course mate of the respondent, Brig. F.S. Yadav (Retd.) was allowed to form a Coal Transport Company by the Director General of Re-settlement under the scheme for retired Army personnel. Brig. Yadav requested the respondent to join him in the said enterprise. When the appellant came to know of this, he expressed his desire to invest his money and join that venture representing that he had sufficient funds at his disposal for this purpose. The respondent communicated this desire of the appellant to Brig. Yadav, who also agreed to the inclusion of the appellant. All the three, namely, the respondent, the appellant and Brig Yadav decided to subscribe 3334, 3333 and 3333 shares respectively of face value of Rs. 100/-each in the company agreed to be floated by them jointly. Two tipper trucks were also to be purchased for running the coal transport company.

(2.) IT was further averred in the plaint that on or around 20.3.1995 the respondent approached the appellant and requested him to contribute his share by making investment of Rs. 3,33,300/- towards share capital and Rs. 1,70,000/-towards margin money for two tipper trucks. Contrary to the earlier representation, the appellant now held out that he did not have funds available to him. In any case, on his request, the respondent arranged for a temporary loan on Rs. 5,04,000/-which money was provided to the appellant for subscribing to the share capital and contributing his share of margin money for the purchase of tripper trucks. Vide his letter dated 26.10.1995, he acknowledged his liability and also created a pledge/lien upon his shares.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved with the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant. He states that there were no admission, much less sufficient admissions warranting passing of the decree in favour of the respondent.