SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(Cal) 96

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
MOHAMMED SIDDIQ - Appellant
Versus
MOHAMED AKBAR - Respondent
Original Suit 521  Of  1935
Decided On : JULY 14, 1949

Advocates Appeared:
A.X.SEN, R.MITTAL

A partner cannot be a creditor or debtor to the firm of which he is a member, and therefore, cannot enforce a liability created by a hundi against the firm.

Headnote:

HUNDI - PARTNERSHIP DISSOLUTION - [Contract Act, Section 43, Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 66 and 69] - The court held that a partner cannot be a creditor or debtor to the firm of which he is a member, and therefore, the plaintiff could not enforce the liability created by the hundi against the firm. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants based on the partnership dissolution agreement and the absence of presentment for payment of the hundi.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought recovery of a sum from the defendants based on a hundi dated 13/11/1938, following the dissolution of a partnership. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were liable for the hundi and had notice of its dishonour.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff could not enforce the liability created by the hundi against the firm due to the partnership dissolution and the absence of presentment for payment. Additionally, the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants based on the partnership dissolution agreement.

Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit against certain defendants, the plaintiff's acceptance of the sum covered by the hundi, the plaintiff's claim against a defendant in view of the partnership dissolution, discharge of liability under the hundi, limitation of the suit against a defendant, and the relief the plaintiff was entitled to.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a partner cannot be a creditor or debtor to the firm of which he is a member, and therefore, the plaintiff could not enforce the liability created by the hundi against the firm. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants based on the partnership dissolution agreement and the absence of presentment for payment of the hundi.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, ruling in favor of the defendants.

SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 10718-4-0 alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defts. 1 to 4 as drawers and acceptors of a hundi dated 13/11/1938, from deft. 5 as indorser of the hundi and from deft. 6 on the footing that he agreed to discharge the liabilities of the deft. 5.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff and Din Mahommad used to carry on business in partnership in the name of East India Export Co. and Asiatic Produce Co. In 1933 they decided to terminate the partnership. The defts. 1 to 4 had drawn and accepted a hundi for Rs. 10,000 payable to the said firm or order 56 days after date. In accord and satisfaction of the pltf. 's share in the partnership, the said Hundi was indorsed by the said firm through Din Mohommed in favour of the plaintiff on 14/11/1933. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent as on and from 31/12/1933 and on 14/2/1934 a deed of dissolution was executed by the plaintiff and Din Mohommed. The deed provided, inter alia, that Din Mahommad would be entitled to realise all the outstandings of the partnership businesses and would pay all debts and liabilities of the said businesses and indemnify the plaintiff in respect of any claim or action in respect of any of the debts of the said businesses and Din Mohommed would be entitled to use the firm names and to the benefit of all contracts entered into by the two firms. In a schedule to the deed of dissolution, the outstandings, stock-in-trade and the liabilities of the businesses were set out, which did not contain any reference to the plaintiff as a creditor on account of the indorsement of the hundi by the deft. firm.

( 3 ) ON 31/12/1933, the plaintiff made and signed the following endorsement in the books of account of the partnership:"after understanding the account, partnership is dissolved amongst us and the account book is closed. , I have received my full dues, and have no further claim. Henceforth I shall have no interest or concern with the firms of East Indian Export Co. and Asiatic Produce Co. "

( 4 ) THE said hundi dated 13/11/1943 was dishonoured by non-payment by the drawers and it is alleged that the deft, firm had notice of dishonour. This suit was filed on 21/3/1935.

( 5 ) THE plaint alleged that on 9/6/1934 the defts. 1 to 4 with the verbal assent of the deft, firm pledged 15 barrels of Lizard Skin as security for the debt due on the hundi, with the plaintiff on certain terms and conditions contained in a writing bearing the said date. Leave was reserved under Order 2, Rule 2 to sue for enforcement of the rights in respect of the pledge.

( 6 ) THE defts. 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement. Defendant 4 filed a separate written statement as also the deft, firm of East India Export Co.

( 7 ) ON 10/3/1937 the suit came up for hearing before Lort-Williams J. and was part-heard.

( 8 ) THEREAFTER an appln. was made for amendment of the plaint. The appln. was heard on 27-7-1937 when Lort-Williams J. made an order that the plaint and the register of the suit be amended by adding to the cause title thereof the name and description of Din Mohommed, a member of the firm of East Indian Export Co. as a party deft. and that the body of the plaint be amended in the manner indicated in red ink in the schedule to the order. The order for amendment was made without prejudice to the contentions of the deft, that the claim against Din Mohommed was barred by limitation and that the amendment introduced a new claim. Pursuant to the order the plaint was amended and the amendment in the plaint was signed by the Registrar on 15-9-1937.

( 9 ) THE plaint was amended by adding Din Mohammed as a party to the suit and by alleging that the deft, firm was a continuation of be firm of East India Export Co. and Din Mohammed had taken over the liabilities of the business of the said firm. It was also alleged that Din Mahommed acknowledged his liability to pay the pltf. 's claim by a letter dated 24-3-1934.

( 10 ) DIN Mahommad filed a written















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top