Back
1953 Supreme(HP) 40
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
CHOUDHRY, J.
Girdhari Lal
Versus
Spedding Dinga Singh
First Appeal No. 12 of 1951
Decided On : 21-08-1953
D.N. Aggarwal, for Appellant; R.N. Malhotra, for Respondent.
Registration of a firm under the Partnership Act is not registration of a document and it is not affected by subsequent agreements between partners.
Headnote:
PARTNERSHIP ACT - S. 69(2) - REGISTRATION OF FIRM - PROOF - CERTIFIED COPY OF ENTRY IN REGISTER OF FIRMS - VALID PROOF OF FACT OF REGISTRATION AND CONTENTS OF STATEMENT RECORDED THEREIN - REGISTRATION OF STATEMENT - NOT REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT - AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTNERS - NOT REQUIRED TO BE IN WRITING - REGISTRATION OF FIRM - NOT AFFECTED BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PARTNERS - SATISFACTION OF REGISTRAR AS TO DUE COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF S. 58 - NOT OPEN TO QUESTION IN COURT OF LAW - POWER OF ATTORNEY - NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH REGISTRAR - POWER OF ATTORNEY - GENERAL IN FORM - NOT IMPERFECT - SATISFACTION OF REGISTRAR - NOT OPEN TO QUESTION IN COURT OF LAW - AGENT - DEFINITION - RIGHT TO CONTROL - TEST.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a firm, sued the defendant for recovery of excess of sums advanced over value of goods supplied, plus interest. The defendant admitted execution of the contracts but pleaded that he acted as an agent. He also claimed certain sums as damages. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff firm was registered before the institution of the suit and that the person suing had been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. The Court also held that the defendant was an independent contractor and not an agent of the plaintiff. The Court further held that the satisfaction of the Registrar as to the due compliance with the provisions of S. 58 was not open to question in a Court of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff firm was registered before the institution of the suit? 2. Whether the defendant was an independent contractor or an agent of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the satisfaction of the Registrar as to the due compliance with the provisions of S. 58 was open to question in a Court of law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the certified copy of the entry in the Register of Firms was valid proof of both the fact of registration and of the contents of the statement recorded therein. The Court also held that registration of a firm was not registration of a document and that it was not affected by subsequent agreements between partners. 2. The Court held that the defendant was an independent contractor and not an agent of the plaintiff on the basis of the terms of the contracts. 3. The Court held that the satisfaction of the Registrar as to the due compliance with the provisions of S. 58 was not open to question in a Court of law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal.
2. The suit was as by a buyer against a seller for recovery of excess of sums advanced over value of goods supplied, plus interest. The suit was based on two contracts of even date, 26-5-1947, under one of which the defendant agreed to supply 100 tons of wheat, and under the other 20 tons of rice, to the plaintiff firm at its godown in Chamba before the expiry of the month of June 1947, the qualities of the commodities and the rates at which they were to be supplied being specified. The plaintiffs case was that the sums advanced to the defendant totalled Rs. 60,000/- and that the defendant supplied goods worth Rs. 43,478/5/9 and repaid Rs. 3,500/- in cash. The suit was therefore for recovery of the balance Rs. 13,021/10/3, plus Rs. 5,130/10/- interest at the contract rate of Rs. 18/12/- per cent per annum, total Rs. 18,152/-.
3. The defendant admitted execution of the two contracts but pleaded that he did so as an agent He admitted receipt of Rs. 60,000/- from the plaintiff but contended that Rs. 50,000/- was received under the aforesaid contracts and Rs. 10,000/- under another, an oral contract for supply of 75 tons of rice. Value of the goods supplied was alleged by him to be Rs. 48,621/9/3. He also admitted repayment of Rs. 3,500/- in cash to the plaintiff. He sought to make the plaintiff liable for two further sums of Rs. 12,000/- each, as follows.
4. one of these two sums is claimed on the alleged oral contract for supply of 75 tons of rice. The oral contract is said to have been entered into at Lahore on 29-7-1947, when plaintiff firms general manager Bawa Sundar Singh is alleged to have advanced Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant for purchase of the rice from the Narang Syndicate of Narang Mandi. The defendant professed to have advanced the said Rs. 10,000/- plus Rs. 2,000/- more to the Syndicate in the beginning of August 1947 for making the purchase, but he contended that delivery could not be taken due to the disturbances following in the wake of partition. He pleaded that Rs. 12,000/- of the plaintiff were thus left in Pakistan and lost by vis major.
5. The other sum of Rs. 12,000/- was claimed by the defendant as damages in respect of the 20 tons of rice. He professed to have advanced Rs. 10,000/- to various dealers of Kalanaur and Dera Baba Nanak in Gurdaspur district for purchase of the rice, and to have forfeited that amount and suffered a further loss of Rs. 2,000/- because of the failure of the plaintiff to secure the necessary permit for taking delivery of the same. Thus, crediting the plaintiff with Rs. 60,000/-, the defendant debited it with the cash payment of Rs. 8,500/-, supply of goods worth Rs. 48,621/9/3, Rs. 12,000/- lost in Pakistan and Rs. 12,000/- lost over the rice deal in Gurdaspur district, total Rs. 76,121/9/3. His contention therefore was that nothing was due to the plaintiff, but that he was entitled to a decree for Rs. 16,121/9/3. He claimed that amount and paid court-fee thereon. He also pleaded that the plaintiff should be required to disclose the names of all its partners, and that the suit was not maintainable as framed.
6. With regard to the last contention, the issue framed was whether the plaintiff firm was registered and whether the suit was maintainable in its present form. The trial Court held that the firm was a registered one and that it was not necessary for all the partners to sue. It may be stated here that the plaintiff firm, styled Messrs. Spedding Dinga Singh and Co., filed the suit through Bawa Sundar Singh as a partner and Genera! Manager of the firm. The trial Court also held that the defendants position was that of an independent contractor and not of an agent for the plaintiff. With regard to the defendants claim of Rs. 12,000/- lost in Gurdaspur, it held that although the plaintiff h
