MADANLAL SOHANLAL Vs. BHAGWANDAS AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was filed against three Defendants as partners of a firm at Bankura, but the first Defendant had no connection with this firm. He died before the institution of this suit and therefore, this action cannot be prosecuted against him.

(2.) The Plaintiff is a firm of Calcutta and has claimed Rs. 75,000 as damages on the material pleas that on May 25, 1943, the Plaintiff agreed to buy and the Defendant firm agreed to sell 6,000 mds. of rice at the rate of Rs. 16 per maund, out of which 3,000 mds. were to be delivered at Sambalpur and the other 3,000 mds. at Sakti and on the same day by a telegram confirmed the oral agreement and requested the Defendant firm to deliver 3,000 mds. of those goods to Ganeshiram Gopiram at Sakti and the other 3,000 mds. to Ganpatrai Todi at Sambalpur and then on July 2, 1943, the Plaintiff again in writing requested the Defendant firm to deliver those goods to those agents of the Plaintiff against payment to be made by those agents, but about the middle of July 1943 the Defendant firm committed a breach of this agreement by non-delivery of those goods.

(3.) The contesting Defendants in their joint written statement have denied all the averments made in the plaint and have craved reference to a letter of August 4, 1943, which is wrongly typed as August 3 to which reference will be made later on. Their material defence is that the alleged agreement and its performance were wholly illegal because the Plaintiff had no licence to buy those goods under the Food-Grains Control Order, 1942, which was promulgated under the Defence of India Rules, 1939.