GOVINDJI J KHONA Vs. K DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Govindji J. Khona, Partner in Messrs. Govindji Jevat and Co., Bombay sued the respondents, the 1st respondent being K. Damodaran, an industrialist at Cannanore and the 2nd respondent. The Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam for that the 1st respondent acting as the Managing Agent of the 2nd respondent falsely and maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause prosecuted the appellant and 2 other persons, Sippy and Krishna Chetty, upon a charge of having conspired together and cheated him of large sums of money. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed with costs the suit which was for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000.

(2.) The complex facts of which this story is made up are as follows: The appellant is a dealer in cotton, doing business at Bombay. Krishna Chetty and Sippy. describing themselves as commission agents at Coimbatore, offered to sell to the respondents certain varieties of cotton in which the appellant was dealing. On 24th May 1956, Chetty sent the letter, Ext. D-2, to the respondents inviting orders for cotton. Three types of cotton were offered for sale in that letter. One of them was Hubli Jaidar, equal to sample T. 3729. 356 bales of cotton of that variety at Rs. 875 per candy, were stated in the letter to be available for sale. It was added in Ext. D-2, at the foot note, that Hubli Jaidar was "an attractive quality in comparison to westerners". On 27th May 1956, the respondents sent a telegram to Chetty offering to purchase 356 bales of Hubli Jaidar equal to sample T. 3729. On receipt of it Chetty on 27th May 1956 itself sent the letter, Ext. D-4, to the respondents accepting the offer. He stated in it that he was contacting his principal at Bombay about the sale.

(3.) On 30th May, 1956 Chetty sent the telegram, Ext. D-5, informing the respondents that on contacting his principal at Bombay, it was understood that the price per candy had to be raised from Rs. 875 to Rs. 890. On receipt of it the respondents sent the telegram Ext. D-6, to Chetty accepting the revised price contained in Ext. D-5 regarding sale of 356 bales of Hubli Jaidar. On 30th May 1956 itself, on receipt of Ext. D-6 telegram Sippy wrote the letter, Ext. D-7, to the respondents confirming on behalf of his principal, the appellant, the sale of 356 bales of Jayadhar at Rs. 890 per candy. That letter was sent by Chetty on 31st May 1956 with his forwarding letter, Ext. D-8, to the respondents. It was stated in both Exts. D-7 and D-8 that the usual contract of the sellers would follow.