NATHU GANGARAM Vs. HANSRAJ MORARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the plaintiff sued as Receiver in Suit No. 30 of 1906 and para 9 of the plaint in that suit is as follows: "The plaintiffs thereafter proceeded to get delivery of the goods deliverable under all the said contracts, when the vendors or some of them declined to recognize the plaintiffs and began to make difficulties. The first defendant accompanied the plaintiffs when they went to take delivery in order to prevent the vendors raising difficulties, when some of the vendors made deliveries to the plaintiffs or paid the amounts which had been settled for, but others refused to give delivery to the plaintiffs and it will be necessary to take legal proceedings against them."

(2.) I cite this para as it appears that with regard to part of plaintiff's claim herein the defendants have declined to recognize the plaintiff. Ex. B, dated the 16th January 1905, was an order made whereby the present plaintiff was appointed Receiver with the powers therein conferred. Ex. C, dated the 20 September 1906, was a decree in Suit No. 30 of 1906, whereby the plaintiffs were in that suit declared assignees of all the contracts.

(3.) Now it appears that the Receiver Nathu Gangaram was a partner with the other plaintiff whose name was Ibrahim Currimbhoy and he had a son named Sherifbhoy, who apparently went in for a large amount of mercantile transactions and was eventually compelled to seek assistance of the firm of Nathu Gangaram in his difficulties. He borrowed from the firm a sum aggregating to Rs. 40,000 and in respect of that sum he assigned six contracts for gunny bags for Rs. G000 and thirty-eight other contracts for the same for Rs. 34,000.