PANNALALL KISHANLAL Vs. LAL CHAND SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit against the defendant opposite party, in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, claiming Rs. 1704-8-6.

(2.) The case made by the plaintiff petitioner was that by an agreement in writing between the plaintiff firm and the defendant firm entered into en September 28, 1951, through broker Makhanlal Jain and evidenced by a Bought Note (Ext. 1.), the defendant firm agreed to sell 25 tons of groundnut oil, loose in returnable drums, at the rate of Rs. 65/8/- per maund, the time for delivery being November 1951. Thereafter, the defendant firm, it is stated, expressed its inability to deliver the goods and requested the plaintiff firm to come to a settlement. Such a settlement was arrived at and io terms of the settlement the plaintiff petitioner resold the goods, covered by the Bought Note (Ext. 1), to the defendant firm at the rate of Rs. 68/- pet maund. The re-sale is evidenced by a Sold Note of broker Radheshyam Brothers (Ext. 2). The defendant firm thus became liable to pay to the plaintiff firm the difference in price at the rate of Rs. 2/8/-per maund, namely, a sum of Bs. 1704/8/6, but failed to pay.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant were wagering contracts and from the inception it was agreed that the plaintiff firm would not demand delivery and the defendant firm would not tender or deliver the goods but the difference in price only would be payable. The common intention of the parties, from the outset, was to speculate on the difference in price and not to demand delivery or to give delivery.