RAJLAL GOVINDRAM Vs. KAKA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit based on a tort for recovery of damages. The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court, but the first appellate Court has reversed that decree. Hence this further appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE basis for claiming damages is rather unusual. The plaintiff is a cloth merchant in retail business at Satna, while defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm, carrying on wholesale business in cloth. Defendant No. 2 cloth Merchants Association, Satna, is an association of cloth merchants, of which defendant No. 1 is a member but not the plaintiff. Plaintiff had business relations with defendant No. 1 in cash as well as on credit. There was some dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 regarding payment of interest on the goods purchased on credit by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1. This led to a resolution by the Managing Committee of the Cloth Merchants Association, Satna, (defendant No. 2) on 1-1-1978, by which it was decided that members of the association would not enter into credit transactions with the plaintiff. Accordingly, such an intimation (Ex. P-6) dated 3-1-1978 was given by the association to all its members. The plaintiff claims that such a resolution passed by the Cloth Merchants association (defendant No. 2) is void and its consequence has been to cause business loss to the plaintiff, which amounts to Rs. 750 at the rate of rs. 250 per month, upto the date of the suit and even thereafter at the same rate. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed a declaration that the resolution dated 1-1-1978 passed by the Cloth Merchants Association (defendant no. 2) is invalid and consequently damages amounting to Rs. 750 upto the date of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 250 per month.

(3.) THE defendants have contested the suit, denying any cause of action in plaintiff's favour for recovery of damages. It is contended that the resolution of the Cloth Merchants Association governs only the members of the Association and it was to protect the interest of the members to whom alone it was communicated for this reason. It has also been contended that the plaintiff not being a member of the Association is not bound by the resolution and has no right to challenge it. Continuance of cash transactions with the plaintiff remains unaffected. The plaintiff's allegation of suffering any actual loss has also been denied. It is also claimed that there is no right to insist on credit transactions and the seller can refuse to sell on credit to any one.