BALJEET SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal filed by one of the defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein). The suit filed by the respondent No.1-Balwant Singh, was for seeking recovery of Rs. 4,60,787/-, essentially from M/s Malwa Commission Agents, of which the appellant is shown to be a partner, along with Tarlochan Singh, (presently respondent No. 2 (i) herein). The firm, M/s Malwa Commission Agents, is impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this appeal, by the appellant.

(2.) The facts, as taken from the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagraon, are that on 20.11.2006, the aforesaid firm, through its partner, i.e. the present appellant, Baljeet Singh, had taken an amount of Rs. 3,78,461/- in cash from the respondent-plaintiff, in order to propagate the "business of Commission Agency", for the sale and purchase of agricultural produce and other merchandise. The aforesaid amount was stated to have been taken by the appellant under the seal of the firm, with the appellants' signatures thereupon. On the memorandum-cum-receipt, there was a recital that the aforesaid amount, along with interest @ of 1.5% per month, would be payable "on the crop season". However, the business of the firm came to a stand still and the partners failed to return the loan amount with the interest, as per the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was filed seeking recovery of the aforesaid principal amount of Rs. 3,78,464/- along with interest of Rs. 82,323.00, the total amounting to Rs. 4,60,787/-.

(3.) Upon notice issued, the firm having been impleaded in its own capacity, through its partners as defendants No. i and ii, the two partners, i.e. the appellant and present respondent No. 2 (i), Tarlochan Singh, filed separate written statements. Tarlochan Singh admitted that defendant No. 1 was a firm, in which he and the appellant were partners, but pleaded that the plaintiff had never remained a customer of the firm at any time and any alleged loan amount taken by the appellant from the plaintiff, was without the knowledge and permission of Tarlochan Singh. It was further stated that the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement dated 10.07.1994, spelt out in Clause 10 thereof, that none of the partners was authorised to raise a loan on behalf of the firm, unless so authorised in writing by the other partner. Hence, it was contended by respondent-Tarlochan Singh that no such permission having been taken from him by the appellant, any loan taken from the plaintiff, would be a loan taken by the appellant in his personal capacity. Hence, neither the firm nor Tarlochan Singh were liable to repay the same. It was further contended that though appellant had issued the plaintiff a Hundi on the letter pad and stamp of the firm, yet the loan amount was never used for the benefit of the firm.