An agreement is void if its object is unlawful.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is a public limited company. Earlier its name was Chowdhry Plast Ltd. The plaintiff owned 4,200 spindles with motors and accessories which were installed at 236, Industrial Area, Ludhiana. by a resolution of the) plaintiff it was decided to sell these spindles at a price of Rs. 1,02,440. 18. The defendant agreed to buy the same at this price. This was by letter dated 5th July, 1973 of the plaintiff to the defendant, which was agreed to by the defendant. This letter is Ex. P-4. Under this the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,0001- towards part payment and the balance amount of Rs, 92,440. 18 he agreed to pay to the plaintiff by 30th September, 1973. This letter also recorded the fact that the possession of the spindles had already been delivered to the defendant. Then this letter also contained the following conditions :

"we shall reader you all assistance as may be required by you for obtaining permission of all Government Authorities by way of signing all paper/dcuments applications appeals or such other papers as may be required in connection therewith. However, obtaining all the permissions will be entirely your responsibility. "by his letter of the same date (Ex. P-2) the defendant sent a cheque for Rs. 10,000. 00 to the plaintiff towards part payment of the price of the aforesaid 4,200 worsted spindles and other accessories. The description of the spindles and accessories is given in the bill dated 5th July, 1973, which was raised by the plaintiff and was in the name of M/s. Gupta Hosiery Mills, properietor Mr. S. K. Gupta, the defendant herein. The defendant did not make payment of the balance amount and the plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,29,8391- which includes the amount of Rs. 92,440. 18, being the balance of the agreed purchase price and interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 1st October, 1973. The defendant in his written statement denied that there was any delivery of the spindles to him. He stated that, in fact, the spindles could not have been transferred to him and deli- very made to him without the permission in writing of the Textile Commissioner, Bombay and the Import Trade Control Authority, the spindles being imported worsted spindles. Rather, the defendant laid his claim for recovery of Rs. 10,000. 00 which had been paid by him by way of advance.

( 2 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the defendants agreed to purchase 4,200 old spindles with motors and accessories from the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 1,02,440. 18 p. (rupees one lac two thousand four hundred forty and eighteen paise only)? OPP.

2. Whether the goods in question were delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant ? OPP.

3. Whether the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 (rupees ten thousand only) was paid by the defendant towards the price of these goods in question by a cheque bearing No. 093837, dated 5-7-73 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, towards part payment of the goods purchased ? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 92,440. 18 (rupees ninety thousand four hundred forty and eighteen paise only), as balance price of the goods sold? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest if so, at what rate and on what amount ? OPP.

6. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD.

7. Whether the defendants are entitled to the recovery of Rs. 10,000. 00 (rupees ten thousand only), with interest ? OPD.

8. Relief.

( 3 ) THERE is a background as to how the spindles were agreed sold and delivery given to the defendant. The defendant his wife were having controlling shares of Chowdhry Plast These sares were sold to one Mr. A. K. Khaitan under agreement dated 27th December, 1972. Mr. A. K. Khaitan was for some time time a Director of Chowdhry Plast Ltd. This agreement has been marked x . But, in view of the evidence on 3 record and als