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

1939 Supreme(All) 8

RACHHPAL SINGH
Harcharan Das Somparkash – Appellant
Versus
Jai Jai Ram – Respondent


ORDER

Rachhpal Singh, J. - The plaintiff, a firm, instituted a suit against the defendant in the Court of Small Causes at Moradabad to recover a sum of money. The defence was that the contract on the basis of which the plaintiff sued was a wagering contract. This defence has been upheld by the learned Judge of the Court below and the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff firm has come up in revision before this Court. The defendant firm carries on business as commission agents at Moradabad, while the plaintiff firm are grain dealers at Meerut. In February and March 1934, the defendant firm purchased grain from the plaintiff. In connexion with those purchases the plaintiff claimed to recover profits together with interest. The important question which requires consideration in this case is whether or not the contract set up by the plaintiff was a wagering contract. The rule laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sukdev Doss Ram Prasad v. Govind Doss Chaturbhuja Doss & Co. AIR (1928) PC 30 is that the mere fact that the contracts are highly speculative is insufficient in itself to render them void as wagering contracts; to produce that result there must be proof that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top