SATYANARAYAN AMOLAKCHAND BHUT Vs. VITHAL NARAYAN JAMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant from a decree for damages to the extent of Rs. 394/4/- for an alleged breach of a contract for the sale of saw dust. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection in which he has claimed enhancement of the damages by Rs. 394/4/ -.

(2.) ). The relevant facts are as follows: The de fendant who is a forest contractor and a timber merchant at Yeotmal had opened branch office at Murtizapur for the sale of timber and saw dust. According to the plaintiff, he had appointed Gopikisan as the manager of the shop and that Gopikisan entered into a contract with the plaintiff on 29-8-1948 for the supply of 2000 bags of saw dusttin four months at the rate of Re. 1/- per bag. The plaintiff alleges that he paid Rs. 250/- as an advance to Gopikisan, that Gopikisan delivered to him only 423 bags of saw dust and that neither he nor the defendant delivered to him the balance. It may be mentioned that in the contract it is stated that if a breach were committed the defendant would be liable to pay Rs. 1000/- by way of damages. The plaintiff therefore claimed this amount together with of a sum of Rs. 102/- which was in excess of the amount which he had paid to Gopikisan over and above the price of 423 bags supplied by him from time to time.

(3.) THE defendant denied the claim. While he admitted that he kept a stock of timber at Murtizapur and also that Gopikisan was his servant who was working at Murtizapur, he denied that Gopikisan was either a manager of the shop, or a diwanji or an agent of the defendant, or that he had any authority to make any forward contracts for the purchase or sale of goods. He also denied the damages claim ed by the plaintiff.