SAKARBHAI HUKAMCHAND Vs. RAMNIKLAL KESHAVLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is brought by the plaintiff, who carries on business in Cambay where he resides, against the defendants, his commission agents, to recover a sum of Rs. 4,672 6-3. This sum is made up of two sums of Rs. 4,512 8-0 and Rs. 1,950, the first item being, according to him, the profit in respect of a teji-mandi transaction of one hundred bales of Broach cotton of May 1, 1929, on the footing of the difference between the selling rate of Rs. 351-4-0 and the purchase rate of Rs. 251 on March 81, 1930 ; and the second item being the amount of profit on a mandi transaction of one hundred bales of May 3, 1929, being the difference between the selling rate of Rs. 300 and the purchase rate of Rs. 261 on March 81, 1930. The plaintiff's case is that there was an account between him and the defendants in respect of certain dealings since Samvat year 1979. On May 1, 1929, the plaintiff applied teji-mandi through the defendants on hundred bales of Broach cotton of April-May 1930 delivery on the rate of Rs. 351-4-0 at Rs. 53-8-0, and on May 3, 1929, he applied mandi on one hundred bales of Broach cotton of April-May 1930 delivery on the rate of Rs. 300 at Rs. 10-4-0. He alleges that these transactions were outstanding till February 1930, when he instructed the defendants to purchase 200 bales of Broach cotton of April-May 1930 delivery at the prevailing market rate to be set off against the resulting transactions from these two outstanding transactions. The defendants, however, having wrongfully closed the outstanding transactions in September a October, 1929 and declined to effect the purchase, he, claims the profit which he would have made if his instructions had been carried out in February 1930.

(2.) The defendants say that the plaintiff failed to pay taran or margin, as it is called, when called upon, and therefore they closed the tejimandi transactions on September 18,1929, and the mandi transactions on October 30, 1929, and as the result of the account there is a sum of Rs. 117-2-6 still due to them by the plaintiff, for which they have not counterclaimed, but reserve leave to proceed against the plaintiff to recover the sum in the Small Cause Court. Their case is, therefore, that when the plaintiff instructed them to effect a purchase of two hundred bales in February, the tejimandi and mandi transactions were not then outstanding. [After dealing with the evidence in the case his Lordship proceeded:]

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that these two transactions were outstanding in February, and he instructed the defendants to enter into a purchase transaction against these two outstanding transactions. It is rather difficult to understand this case, and ultimately, I think, it was conceded that there was no evidence before me to show that because a teji-mandi transaction was outstanding, therefore the commission agents would be bound to effect a forward transaction to be set off against the outstanding transactions. The defendants were pakka adatias. The transaction which they were asked to enter into had no connection with the teji- mandi transactions. According to the authorities it is clear that a pakka adatia is entitled to demand margin before he enters into any transaction, whether an independent transaction or a transaction by way of a covering transaction. No authority is necessary to be stated on this point, but if one be needed, reference may be made to the decision in Bhagwandas V/s. Kanji, s.c. 7 Bom. L.R. 611.