Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.P.Singh and S.Sarwar Ali JJ.
Baidyanath Mandal
Versus
Coal Purchase, Inspection Agency (P.) Ltd.In Liquidation
Appeal from Original Decree No. 307 of 1964 ;
Decided On : MAY 01, 1970
LIMITATION - Acknowledgment of liability - Whether letter (Exhibit 1) dated 19th September, 1960, contained an admission or acknowledgment of the existing liability - Whether Mr. Das had the authority to make acknowledgment of liability on behalf of the defendants.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Company filed a money suit for realisation of Rs. 24,499.71 Paise as arrears of commission (besides costs) which was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff Company under a contract entered into between them. The suit was tried in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge at Dhanbad and it has been decreed in full with costs. The defendants appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the letter (Exhibit 1) dated 19th September, 1960, did not contain an admission or acknowledgment of the existing liability and that Mr. Das did not have the authority to make acknowledgment of liability on behalf of the defendants. The court further held that the plaintiff Company was entitled to a decree only in respect of a sum of Rs. 8,730.79 paise with proportionate costs of the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the letter (Exhibit 1) dated 19th September, 1960, contained an admission or acknowledgment of the existing liability? 2. Whether Mr. Das had the authority to make acknowledgment of liability on behalf of the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the letter (Exhibit 1) dated 19th September, 1960, did not contain an admission or acknowledgment of the existing liability because the statements made therein were vague and did not indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties. 2. The court held that Mr. Das did not have the authority to make acknowledgment of liability on behalf of the defendants because the plaintiff Company did not adduce any evidence to prove that Mr. Das had such an express authority and the mere fact that Mr. Das used to write letters on behalf of the defendants was not sufficient to infer that he had the implied authority to make such an acknowledgment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part with proportionate costs of this court and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was modified and the suit of the plaintiff Company was decreed only in part as indicated above.
S.N.P.Singh, J.
1. This appeal is by the defendants and it arises out of a money suit filed by the plaintiff Company for realisation of Rs. 24,499.71 Paise as arrears of commission (besides costs) which was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff Company under a contract entered into between them. The suit was tried in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge at Dhanbad and it has been decreed in full with costs.
2. The plaintiff is a limited Company haying its head office at Calcutta and carries on the business of commission agents and middlemen at various places including Dhansar in the District of Dhanbad. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are partners of a firm known as Messrs. B. N. Mandal and Company (defendant No. 6). The defendants own a colliery and they carry on the business of sale and despatch of coal from the colliery to different customers at different places. The case of the plaintiff Company, as made out in the plaint, is that the defendants approached it for the sale of their coal by securing customers and agreed to pay commission at the rate of six annas per ton on sale of the coal to the customers secured by it. The said contract was entered into between them by correspondence. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the plaintiff Company secured different customers including Messrs. Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and Messrs. Burn & Co.. for disposal of the stork of coal raised by the defendants from their colliery. The defendants used to despatch coal to the customers secured by the plaintiff Company from time to time and they used to intimate to it about the despatches. The plaintiff Company thereupon used to submit bills for commission on the basis of the information received by it. The plaintiff Company has alleged that a sum of Rs. 24,499.71 Paise is payable by the defendants to the plaintiff Company on account of the bills submitted by it after adjustment of all payments made by the defendants but the defendants have failed to pay the said amount in spite of repeated requests and service of notice on them. In the schedule of the plaint the particulars of the bills alleged to have been submitted by the plaintiff have been given. As stated in paragraph 10 of the plaint, the cause of action for the suit arose at Dhansar within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dhanbad on, 3-10-58, 3-1-59, 19-6-59, 19-9-60, 3-8-61 and on subsequent dates.
3. In the written statement filed by the defendants it has been denied that they approached the plaintiff Company at Dhansar. According to the defendants case, the representative of the plaintiff Company had come to their Calcutta office and all the talks and negotiations had taken place there and correspondence was subsequently made. According to the defendants, no cause of action arose at Dhansar on the different dates mentioned in the plaint. In paragraph 7 of their written statement, the defendants have admitted the statements made in paragraph 4 of the plaint, namely, that in pursuance of the said contract the plaintiff Company secured different customers including Messrs. Indian Iron and Steel Co., and Messrs. Burn & Co., for purchase of coal from the defendants colliery; that the defendants used to despatch coal to the customers from time to time and used to intimate to the plaintiff Company about the despatches and that the plaintiff Company used to submit bills for commission on the basis of the information received by it. The defendants, however, have denied the fact that a sum of Rs. 24,499.71 Paise or any amount was due to the plaintiff Company from them. According to the defendants, by letter No. 2061-A/59 dated the 29th of May, 1959, they informed the plaintiff Company that they would no more pay any middleman commission. The defendants further have taken the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. They have denied having sent any letter to the plaintiff Company on the 19th of September, 1960. According to the defendants, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
