PROBODH CHANDRA MITRA Vs. ROAD OILS (INDIA) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree pronounced by my learned brother Page, J., and dated 26 March 1929. By that decree the learned Judge declared that an agreement dated 18th April 1928 purporting to create a charge on the outstanding bills due to the defendant company for the amount due to the plaintiff was not binding on the defendant company. He further ordered that the defendant company do pay to the plaintiff an agreed sum of Rs. 42,000 with interest at 6 per cent until realization and he reserved consideration of certain other matters which were dealt with by a subsequent order and are the subject of another appeal (No. 52 of 1929).

(2.) The suit was one brought by the plaintiff against a limited company called the Road Oils (India)Limited. It was originally instituted on 19 December 1928 and, by his plaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant company being a, company which manufactured and sold certain road oils appointed him in April 1928 treasurer or banian or financial agent. He was to find up to a certain limit moneys necessary for carrying on the business of the company. He was to be the person who had the sole right to collect all sums due to the company in respect of the oils supplied. He was to have the various rights mentioned in that agreement in order to obtain for himself refund of the advances which he undertook to make. The plaintiff's case was that having been appointed under that agreement, he acted under that agreement through out the rest of the year 1928 until the mon October, but that in the month of October, the defendant company, instead of allowing him to collect the out standings, collected it themselves in breach of the agreement. He further claimed that he had owing to him a sum exceeding Rs. 42,000 for which he asked for a decree and he asked for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant company who were at that time the sole defendant by their written statement admitted that the agreement of 18 April 1928 had been entered into. They referred to its terms for a proper construction and denied that it conferred a charge but they claimed that they had acted faithfully in terms of the agreement and cooperated with the plaintiff to the fullest possible extent in realizing and collecting the bills and other moneys due to the defendant company. They alleged that, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff was in sole charge of the finances of the defendant company and met all the expenses for the working and management of the company and that none of the directors handled the funds of the company so that the defendant company's case was that the agreement had been acted on to the full. As regards the allegation that the defendant company had broken the agreement by endeavouring to collect certain moneys direct and to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining them as tinder the agreement he would be entitled to do they set up various excuses. That defence was filed in January 1929.

(3.) It appears that certain persons of the name of Chowdhury had claims against the company. They too at a previous stage would appear to have acted as financiers of the company in some sense, and it would appear that they had brought a suit in June 1928 against this company for moneys advanced. In the long run, that suit was settled and it was settled on terms that gave these Chowdhuries a money decree for a sum which amounted altogether to Rs. 25,000. It seems that Rs. 10,000 was paid in September. 1928 and that thereafter the balance of Rs. 15,000 was payable, at all events, by November 1928. In these circumstances, before the plaintiff's suit with which we are now concerned was heard these judgment creditors of the company the Chowdhuries applied and obtained leave to attach the moneys in the hands of the receiver in this suit. I should have explained that in the present suit a receiver had been appointed for the purpose of collecting the out standings in question and giving effect to the plaintiff's claim.