JUDGMENT - (1) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Sangli.

(2) The plaintiff is doing business in groundnuts and turmeric at Sangli. The defendant No.e is a public limited company, which came into existence in the year 1951. the company was founded, as provided by Art. 3, for the purpose and the object of promoting the business of the Sangli Bazar in various commodities, wuch as, turmeric, groundnut oil and othe roil-seeds etc. and to regulate the same and it was also epecifically provided by sub-clause (b) that the further object was to regulate forward dealings in the abovementioned cammodities, which were not prohibited so far or would not be prohibited in future. The purposes were to provide all possibel facilities to the producting agriculturists, to encourtage and help them, to grow the best kind of agricultural produce,. and such other purposes. There were 50 or 60 share-holders of the company. amongst them was the plaintiff, who held his share in the name of his minor brother, mahendrakumar Babulal. Now, this defendant-company followed a Clearing House System as provided for by one of the Acticles - Article 36 - and under the Company bye-law, appointed the defendant No. 2 the Clearing Agent on 8-12-1951. the transactions in question were made according to the bye-law No. 24 framed by the defendant-company between the plaintiff and some other share-holders. It was the duty of the defendant No. 1 as clearing agent to distribute the money due to the members of the association from Co-members after it was paid by them. the transactions is question were between the 8th of December 1951 to the 19th of March 1952,. On 19-3-1952 the Company (i.e. the Board of Directors) declared the rates at which all transactions had to be squared up and it further declared that the debtor-mimbers should make the deposit as required by the reules with the defendant-company in order that the amount be distributed to the creditor members concerned on the next day. According to the Plainitff, the plaintiff had to receive from his debtor-members a sum of R. 14,430-5-0 and he had to pay to his creditor members Rs. 1,254-6-0. Thus the plaintiff was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 13,575-15-0 from the defendant-company. According to the plaintiff three of the members who were indebted to him had defaulted and did not pay in full in Clearing House. Taking into account the defaults of the three members, according to the plaintiff, he would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 9,470 from the defendants No. 1 and 2 and interest of Rs. 804-15-0 thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, making a total of Rs. 10,274-15-0.

(3) The defendants contested the suit. The defendant No. 1 denied that any declaration was made as stated by the plaintiff. It also denied that neither the association nor the defendant No. 2, the Clearing Agent, are responsible to any member as such for the amount due to them from the debtor-members. It denied the correctness of the form submitted by the plaintiff and, therefore, said that the suit was defective. The defendant No. 1 also denied that it was the agent or the trustee of the plaintiff. it contended that as full payment of the amount was not made by the debtor-members to the defendant-company, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any amount. that the suit of the plaintiff would be barred because the forward transactions in turmeric were held to be illegal by the Supreme Court on 29-5-1952. That the plaintiff was not entitaled to any amount of interest in the suit. The defendant No. 2 practically accepted the statement of the defendant No. 1 and made the same contentions. He contended that it was his duty to deposit the amount with the defendant No. 1 and since the eitire amount was not received from the debtor-members he deposited a sum of R. 11,518-5-0 in Bank of maharashtra, Sangli, into account of the defendant No. 1. He is, therefore, not liable

Click Here to Read the rest of this document