Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J, John Woodroffe, J., Asutosh Mookerjee, J.
Raghumull - Appellant
Versus
Luchmondas - Respondent
Decided On : 11-02-1916
Contract - Termination - Under-brokerage Agreement - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 253, 10 - - The court examined the termination of an under-brokerage agreement, considering the death of a joint broker, the subsequent conduct of the parties, and the effect of a new agreement between the principal and the surviving broker. The court held that the death of a joint broker did not automatically terminate the agreement, and the surviving broker's conduct indicated a continuation of the agreement. However, the court found that a new agreement between the principal and the surviving broker effectively rescinded the prior agreement, including the under-brokerage agreement, which was dependent on the prior agreement. The court also considered the issue of notice required for termination under the agreement and held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages beyond the date the new agreement was made, as the under-brokerage agreement was dependent on the prior agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, under-brokers, were appointed by the defendant and his deceased brother, brokers, to act as under-brokers for the sale and purchase of sugar. The defendant terminated the under-brokerage agreement, claiming the plaintiffs had breached its terms. The plaintiffs sued for damages for wrongful termination, brokerage commission, and profits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's termination of the under-brokerage agreement was wrongful. However, the court also found that a new agreement between the defendant and the principal effectively rescinded the prior agreement, including the under-brokerage agreement. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the period between the wrongful termination and the date the new agreement was made, but not beyond that date.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendant had validly terminated the under-brokerage agreement, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for wrongful termination, and the extent of those damages. The court also considered the effect of a new agreement between the defendant and the principal on the under-brokerage agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of contract law, including the interpretation of agreements, the effect of termination clauses, and the assessment of damages for breach of contract. The court held that the death of a joint broker did not automatically terminate the agreement, but a new agreement between the principal and the surviving broker could effectively rescind the prior agreement, including any dependent agreements. The court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the period between the wrongful termination and the date the new agreement was made, but not beyond that date.
Final Decision: The court varied the decree, reducing the damages awarded to the plaintiffs and directing an account of the losses sustained by the defendant on contracts made during the period between the wrongful termination and the date the new agreement was made.
JUDGMENT
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. - This is an appeal by the defendant Raghumull from a judgment of Greaves, J., delivered on the 31st May 1915.
2. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant was for damages for breach of an agreement in writing, dated the 8th June 1911, fur money due for under-brokerage under the said agreement for brokerage and profits alleged to be due by reason of a verha arrangement, by which it was alleged the plaintiffs were to receive remuneration for certain transactions on the terms of the written agreement: and for brokerage in respect of other matters set out in the statement of claim.
3. It appears that by an agreement dated 31st May 1911, Messrs. David Sassoon & Co. appointed the defendant Raghumull and Juggoomul (who is since dead), trading in the name of Madhoram Hurdeodass, their brokers for the sale and purchase of sugar during the subsistence of that agreement, that is for a period of five years from the date thereof, or for such other period as might be mutually agreed upon unless sooner determined under the provisions in that behalf thereinafter contained.
4. The Clause relating to the determination of the contract is 15, whereby it is provided as follows: "This agreement may be determined by either party giving the other three calendar months' notice. Provided always that the company shall be at liberty to terminate this agreement at any time in the event of the brokers failing duly and faithfully to perform their duties under the agreement, and thereupon the accounts between the broker and the company shall at once be closed."
5. By Clause 2 of the agreement the brokers wore to employ such under-brokers as should be necessary for the purposes of the company's sugar business and that such under-brokers should be under the control of the company.
6. Consequently on the 8th June 1911, Raghumull and Juggoomul entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs, by which the plaintiffs were appointed to act as under-brokers for the brokers for the sale and purchase of sugar in respect of all contracts to be entered by them for or on behalf of David Sassoon & Co. under the agreement of 31st May 1911, and during the subsistence of the said agreement or for such other period as the brokers (that is Raghumull and Juggoomul) and the company might further extend. Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the agreement provide as follows:
2. All purchases and sales of sugar through the under-brokers shall be guaranteed by them and all contracts for all such sales and purchases shall be countersigned by the under-brokers, who shall in every respect be responsible for the due observance and performance and fulfilment of all such contracts; provided the said under-brokers or their subordinate under-brokers shall be unable to obtain contracts for the sale and purchase of sugar at the rates quoted by the said brokers, the said brokers shall be at liberty to enter into contracts for the sale or purchase of such sugar through other under-brokers or under-broker at or above the quoted rates and in such cases the under-brokers shall not be responsible to the brokers nor shall be entitled to any brokerage in respect of such contracts.
3. During the subsistence of this agreement the under-brokers shall not act as under-brokers for any other broker for purchases and sales of sugar and unless prevented from illness or any other unavoidable cause shall attend the office or place of business of the broker daily either by himself or his duly authorised agents.
4. The brokers shall on arrival of the goods sold through the under-brokers give notice of the arrival or any other notice required to be given to purchasers by delivering such notice to the under-brokers and the notice so given shall be deemed sufficient for all purposes.
5. The under-broker shall be entitled to during the continuance of this agreement on all contracts passed through him at the rate of eight annas per cent, on the value of the goods, the subject-matter of the con
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
