GURBAKSH SINGH SODI Vs. BALLAVDAS AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by Sri Monindra Mohan Bhattacharji, subordinate judge, First Court, Howrah, on February 24. 1947, in Title Suit No. 38 of 1944. The suit was originally instituted in the firm-name of Bellavdas Eshwardas, a joint Hindu family trading firm, having its head office at 12, Cullen Place, Howrah, and the plaint was signed and verified on behalf of the firm by Ballavdas Agarwalla, said to be one of the proprietors of the above firm. Thereafter on February 18, 1945, a petition for amendment of the plaint was filed, in which it was disclosed that the firm had another proprietor Eshwardas Agarwalla. A prayer was made for bringing on the record both the proprietors as Plaintiffs. The prayer was allowed by the subordinate judge by his order, dated March 14, 1945, with the result that the suit was no longer a suit by a firm, but a suit by two proprietors of the firm in their individual capacity.

(2.) The Plaintiffs' case in brief may be set forth as follows. The Plaintiffs are the catering contractors of the erstwhile East Indian Railway and some other Railways, having their head office at 12, Cullen Place, Howrah, and the Defendant No. 1 was employed first as an inspector of their catering business at Lucknow on June 1, 1939, and he executed a service contract at the head office at Howrah on July 1, 1939. In October, 1941, the Plaintiffs were appointed by the Railway Administration as their agents and contractors for procurement of foodstuff and distribution of the same, among the Railway employees at Lucknow, and the Plaintiffs took charge of their Railway grain shop at Lucknow on or about October 10, 1941. The Defendant took charge of the said grain shop as its superintendent in addition to his own duties as inspector of the catering business, on the same terms and conditions as set forth in the service contract, dated July 1, 1939. In the initial stages, the funds for the grain shop business were first kept in a Home Savings account with the Central Bank of India Limited, Defendant No. 3, but in or about the month of July, 1942, Defendant No. 1 opened a separate account in the said Bank wherein the funds of the grain shop business were kept. The Defendant No. 1 managed the business well for some time, but later on it transpired that he had misappropriated large sums of money and falsified accounts, and he did not render true and proper accounts though the Plaintiffs made demands in this behalf from time to time. The Defendant No. 1 also made large profits by utilising the Plaintiffs' money for carrying on a side business with Pokermull Bishambhar Dayal, Defendant No. 2, grain merchants of Lucknow, in clear violation of the terms of the service contract. The Defendant No. 1 was, therefore, placed on suspension on June 5, 1944, and this suit for accounts and other reliefs was instituted on September 6, 1944.

(3.) The main relief in the suit was asked against Defendant No. 1. As against him the Plaintiffs asked for a decree for accounts relating to moneys received by him in the course of management of the catering business and the grain shop business, and also for accounts of the side business with Defendant No. 2. As against Defendant No. 2 the Plaintiffs prayed for a decree for accounts of the said business. As against the Bank, defendant No. 3, the Plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the Bank from making any further payment to defendant No. 1 pending the disposal of the suit.