HIRALAL-MAHABIR PERSHAD Vs. MUTSADDILAL-JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated 28th May, 1956, dismissing the suit for the recovery of Rs. 7,126, with costs.

(2.) THE suit was founded on the allegations that the Plaintiff -firm had been appointed as pakka arhtia by the Defendants to enter into certain deals on the latter's behalf. The Plaintiff -firm, it was averred, was doing the business, of Commission Agents as pakka arhtia in respect of forward delivery of silver, Gur, gold, etc. in accordance with the rules of the Vishnu Exchange Ltd., Delhi, the; East Punjab Trading Co. Ltd., Delhi and Shri Maha Lakshmi Bullion Exchange Ltd., Delhi. The Defendants in August, 1949, appointed the Plaintiff as their pakka arhtia for entering into transactions of forward delivery in respect of Gur, silver and gold according to the rules of the aforesaid chambers which were fully known to the Defendants. Arhat and other expenses and interest according to the customs obtaining in the market together with the chamber expenses, according to the rules of the aforesaid chambers, were also agreed to be paid. The Defendants were alleged to have entered into transactions shown by letters A, B, C, D, G and H in respect of silver, gold and Gur mentioned in the schedule which was attached to the plaint. Up to 7th November, 1949, the accounts were apparently squared up Later on, from 9th November; 1949 to 14th February, 1950 the Defendants entered into transactions in respect of silver gold and Gur shown in the schedule attached to the plaint and marked with letters E, F and I. In transaction marked by letter E, there was a profit to the Defendants, whereas in transactions marked with letters F and I, the Defendants had suffered losses. The total loss mentioned in the plaint was stated to be a sum of Rs. 6,169 -6. To this was added the interest claimed by the Plaintiff and the decree was claimed for a sum of Rs. 7,126, as mentioned, earlier.

(3.) IN his statement, Shri K.L. Arora, Advocate for the Defendant, on 12th December, 1952 admitted the existence of contracts shown as - -A to H in the schedule attached to the plaint, but he added that the same had been entered into with the Plaintiff as principal and not as pakka arhtia. Receipt of profits in respect of these contracts on 7th November, 1949, was also admitted. Contracts mentioned in I (J) for the due date Phagun Shudi 15, Sambat 2006 were not admitted. All the contracts were stated to be of wagering character and therefore unenforceable. It was added that all forward transactions in respect of Gur had been declared illegal by the Government on 14th February, 1950.