FIRM RAMDHAN KEDARMAL Vs. FIRM TOLLA TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages for breach of contract.

(2.) THE case of the respondent according to the plaint filed before the trial Court on 14-5-1949 in me court of the District Judge, Kishengarh was, that the parties were members of the Chamber of Commerce, Ltd. , Madanganj and dealt in gold and silver bullion according to the rules of the Chamber. It was alleged that the plaintiff agreed to purchase 50 bars of silver at Rs. 168/- per bar (100 tolas)deliverable on Asad Budi 1 Smt. 2005, the transaction itself having been done on jeth Budi Amavas (7th June 1948) of the same year through the registered brokers of the Chamber. It was alleged that the defendant while entering into an agreement of sale of the aforesaid bars, said that this transaction was to be entered in the name of a merchant whose name would be disclosed later on, but if this was not disclosed, the transaction would be as if entered by the defendant. On the next day the defendant gave out that his own name as seller be entered. It was alleged that according to the rules of the Chamber every member dealing in gold and silver bullion had to send a list of his transactions with other members. The list of the plaintiff contained an entry of purchase of 50 bars and the list of the defendant also contained an entry of sale of 50 bars. The name of merchant with whom the transaction took place, was not entered in the list filed by the plaintiff. So far as the list of the defendant was concerned, he made an entry that he had sold the aforesaid 50 bars to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that on information being received from the broker that the defendant had agreed being named himself as the seller, the plaintiff went to the office of the Chamber and entered the name of the defendant at the blank space left for the purpose. It was then urged that the office of the Chamber later sent for the plaintiff to inform that the defendant had cut out the entry of sale of 50 bars to the plaintiff from the list of 7-6-1948 and because the defendant wanted to repudiate that contract, he advised the plaintiff to make an applicattion to the Chamber according to the rules for the Settlement of the dispute. The allegation further is that the plaintiff made an application to the Chamber on 9-6-1948 for allowing damages for the refusal by the defendant to perform his contract on the due date. The office of the Chamber declared that the market rate on 9-6-1948 at 4. 30 P. M. was Rs 173/12/- per hundred tolas at which rate the damages were to be calculated if the Arbitration Committee decided in favour of the plaintiff that a breach of contract had taken place. The Arbitration Committee went into the matter and held that the defendant had committed breach of contract and damages should be allowed on the difference between the rate at which the bars were purchased and the rate of Rs. 173-12-0 declared by the office as aforesaid. The amount of damages came to Rs. 8,050/ -. This award was made on 19-61948. The plaintiff further alleged that after the award, he received Rs. 1,278/through the Chamber from the defendant, and made a claim for the balance of Rs. 6,772/- principal and certain interest at 6 per cent P. A. making a total of Rs. 7,140/ -.

(3.) THE defendant denied having entered into the contract for the sale of 50 bars of silver on 7-6-1948. It was alleged that only ten bars of silver were sold and that the transaction was completed according to the rules of the Chamber. Certain other points were also raised. The Court framed as many as six issues and as a result of the trial found in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree for Rs. 6,772/- having disallowed the claim of interest. The learned Senior Civil Judge, kishengarh in whose Court the appeal was preferred by the defendant, dismissed the same. The defendant has come in appeal to this Court.