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

2006 Supreme(MP) 74

2006(2) JLJ 311
K.K. Lahoti and Smt. Manjusha Namjoshi, JJ.
Nav Bharat Corporation v. M.P. Electricity Board
First Appeal No. 238 of 1996: against the judgment and
decree by IX Additional District Judge. Jabalpur passed in
Civil Suit No. 148-B of 1995;
Decided on 12.1.2006.

Advocates:
Ramji Vishwakarma for. appellant;
R.S. Jaiswal with Shrivastava for respondent.

Headnote:(1) Contract Act, 1872 -- Ss. 191 and 192 n plaintiff engaging‘ defendant for collecting and sending material from various ports -defendant, in turn; engaging company at Calcutta for this purpose without knowledge of plaintiff -- company at Calcutta does not become sub-agent or agent of plaintiff merely because plaintiff wrote a letter to it.

       Out of 781.0706 MT of steel material imported through vessel Jiao Chung, 119 MT material was not delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff due to his gross negligence and willful misconduct. A part of it was wrongfully withheld and misappropriated by the defendant‘s agent M/s. Gopal and Kumar pvt. Ld, Calcutta, and the other part of 47 bundles could not be delivered to the plaintiff due to the willful negligence of the defendant. It was also pleaded the It the said M/s: Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. had left over 112 MT steel consignment of the plaintiff unclaimed in the port and held another 43 MT steel in their god owns for non-payment of the dues. That the defendant did not give funds to clear the consignment by M/s. Gopal and Kumar Pvt Ltd. Out of 47 bundles of steel. 40 were auctioned by the port authorities and seven bundles could not be auctioned. The• plaintiff has given details of claim for damages as per paragraph 27.

       The defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff and stated that it was plaintiff who was negligent in the matter and did riot cooperate to clear the steel material from Calcutta port. Since the defendant had no authority Lo unload steel from Calcutta port, he had to appoint M/s. Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. as their sub-agent who neglected in unloading the goods. That the plaintiff has directly dealt with the sub-agent, hence, there was an implied delegation, consent and implied authority to the sub-agent to deal on behalf of the plaintiff. [Paras 3 & 4

       Held: The sub-agent should be clothed with precisely the same rights and incur precisely the same obligation and are bound to the same duties, in regard to his immediate employer, as if he was the sole and real principal. His position is much superior than that of a servant in the matter of discretion to be taken as and when needed. This is the sum and substance of section 191 of the Contract Act which defines the term "sub-agent". What is needed under section 192 of the Contract Act is the appointment of sub-agent should be by approval of the Principal.

       In the present case, it was defendant who appointed the said company to work on its behalf in Calcutta P0l1 as it had no authority to work there independently. Thus, for its convenience the defendant hired the services of the said company. The plaintiff was not in knowledge of the fact that the defendant had agreed to pay commission or remuneration for services to be rendered by the Company. It was sure that the plaintiff had not to bear any expenditure on the said Company. Merely because on one occasion the plaintiff wrote letter and made communication with the said Company, does not mean that the plaintiff accepted the said company as its agent or sub-agent. [Para 6(D)

       (2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 14 proviso -- ‘‘duly authrised" -authorisation to sign pleading -- need not be in writing -- it may be oral also. AIR 1939 Nag. 242, AIR 1961 Born. 292 and AIR 1941 Nag. 159 relied on. (para 6(A)

       (3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 20(c) -- territorial jurisdiction-- tenders invited from Jahalpur -- contract completed at Jabalpur -- Court at Jahalpur has jurisdiction. [Para 6(B)

       (4) Limitation Act, 1963 -- Art. 55 -- Contract Act, 1872 -- S. 73 -Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 2 R. 2 -- suit claiming compensation damages -filed within 3 years of accrual of cause of action -- is within limitation -"compensation" in Art. 55, Limitation Act -- includes damages and claim of compensation by payment of money envisaged under S. 73 of Contract Act. 1958 JLJ 853 relied on. [Para 6(C)

       (5) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 34 -- claim of huge amount of damages -15% p.a. interest is on higher side -- reduced to 9% -- commercial transaction -- plaintiff is also entitled to interest from institution of suit till recovery. [Para 6(F)

       ¼1½ lafonk vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 191 rFkk 192 && oknh us izfroknh dh fofHkUu canjxkgks ls lkexzh ,df=r djus vkSj Hkstus ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k && izfroknh us oknh dh tkudkjh d fcuk bl iz;kstu ds fy, dydÙkk esa daiuh fu;qDr dh && dydÙkk fLFkr daiuh oknh dh mi&vfHkdrkZ ;k vfHkdrkZ ek= blfy, ugha cu tkrh fd oknh us mls ,d i= fy[kk FkkA

       tyiksr ft;kvks pqax ls vk;kfrr 78130706 eh-Vu bLikr lkexzh esa ls 199 eh-Vu lkexzh izfroknh }kjk viuh ?kksj mis{kk vkSj tkucw> dj fd, x, vopkj ds dkj.k oknh dks ifjnÙk ugha dh xbZA mldk ,d Hkkx izfroknh ds vfHkdrkZ es- xksiky ,aM dqekj izk-fy-] dydÙkk }kjk lnks"k fo/kkfjr vkSj nqfoZfu;ksftr dj fy;k x;k rFkk 47 caMyksa dk vU; Hkkx izfroknh dh tkucw> dj dh xbZ mis{kk ds dkj.k oknh dks ifjnÙk ugha fd;k tk ldkA ;g vfHkokd~ Hkh fd;k x;k fd mDr es] xksiky ,aM dqekj izk-fy- us oknh dk 112 eh-Vu ls vf/kd bLikr dk ijs‘k.k canjxkg ls ykokfjl NksM+ fn;k Fkk rFkk ‘kks/; ds vlank; ds dkj.k vius xksnkeksa esa 43 eh-Vu bLikr Hkh jksd fy;k FkkA ;g fd izfroknh us es- xksiky ,am dqekj izk-fy- }kjk ijs‘k.k eqDr fd, tkus ds fy, fuf/k ugha nhA bLikr ds 47 caMyksa esa ls 40 iksr izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk uhyke dj fn, x, vkSj lkr caMy uhyke ugha fd, tk ldsA oknh us iSjk 27 esa uqdlkuh ds fy, nkos dk C;kSjk fn;k gSA

       izfroknh us oknh ds nkos dk izR;k[;ku fd;k gS rFkk dgk gS fd oknh gh bl fo"k; es mis{kkiw.kZ Fkk rFkk mlus dydÙkk canjxkg ls bLikr lkexzh eqDr djkus esa lg;ksx ugha fd;kA D;ksafd izfroknh dks dydRrk canjxkg ls bLikr mrjokus dk izkf/kdkj ugha Fkk] mls muds mi&vfHkdrkZ ds :i esa ls es- xksiky ,aM dqekj izk-fy- dks fu;qDr djuk iM+k ftlus eky mrjokus esa mis{kk dhA ;g fd oknh us mi&vfHkdrkZ ls lh/ks O;ogkj fd;k gS blfy, oknh dh vksj ls dk;Z djus dk mi&vfHkdrkZ dks foof{kr izR;k;kstu lgefr vkSj foof{kr izkf/kdkj FkkA ¿ iSjk 3 ,oa 4À

       vfHkfu/kkfjr % mi&vfHkdrkZ izferr% mUgha vf/kdkjksa ls lfTtr gksuk pkfg, vkSj mls izferr% ogh dk/;rk vius Åij ysuk pkfg, rFkk og vius vO;ofgr fu;kstd ds laca/k esa mUgha drZO;ksa }kjk vkc) gS tSls fd og ,dek= vkSj okLrfod ekfyd gksA tc vkSj tSls vko‘;d gks rc foosdkf/kdkj iz;qDr djus ds fo"k; esa mldh fLFkfr lsod ls dkQkh mPprj gSA ;gh lafonk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 191 dk lkj&la{ksi gS ftlesa ‘‘kCn **mi&vfHkdrkZ** ifjHkkf"kr gSA lafonk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 192 ds v/khu vko‘;d gS fd mi&vfHkdrkZ dh fu;qfDr ekfyd ds vuqeksnu ls dh tkuk pkfg,A

       izLrqr ekeys esa izfroknh us mDr daiuh dh viuh vksj ls dydÙkk canjxkg ij dk;Z djus ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k Fkk D;ksafd mls ogk¡ Lora= :i ls dk;Z djus dk izkf/kdkj ugha FkkA vr% viuh lqfo/kk ds fy, izfroknh us mDr daiuh dh lsok HkkM+s ij yhA oknh dks bl rF; dh tkudkjh FkhA fd izfroknh us daiuh }kjk nh tkus okyh lsok ds fy, deh‘ku ;k ikfjJfed lanÙk djus dk djkj fd;k FkkA mls fo‘okl Fkk fd oknh dks mDr daiuh ij dksbZ O;; ogu ugha djukA ek= blfy, fd ,d volj ij oknh us mDr daiuh dks i= fy[kk rFkk mlls laokn fd;k] ;g vFkZ ugha fudyrk fd oknh us mDr daiuh dks vius vfHkdrkZ ;k mi&vfHkdrkZ ds :i esa Lohdkj fd;kA ¿ iSjk 6

(D)

       ¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 6 fu- 14 ijarqd && **lE;d~ :i ls izkf/kd`r** && vfHkopu ij gLrk{kj djus ds fy, izkf/kdkj && fy[kr esa gksuk vko‘;d ugha && ekSf[kd Hkh gks ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1939 ukx- 242] , vkb vkj 1961 cacbZ 292 rFkk , vkb vkj 1941 ukx] 159 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6(A)

       ¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 20 ¼x½ && {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk && fufonk tcyiqj ls vkeaf=r && lafonk tcyiqj esa laiw.kZ dh xbZ && tcyiqj ds U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk gSA ¿ iSjk 6(B)

       ¼4½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 && vuq- 55 && lafonk vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 73 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 2 fu- 2 && izfrdj uqdlkuh ds nkos dk okn && okngsrqd izksn~Hkwr gksus ds rhu o"kZ ds Hkhrj Qkby fd;k x;k && ifjlhek ds Hkhrj gS && vuq- 55] ifjlhek vf/kfu;e esa izfrdj esa uqdlkuh vkSj lafonk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 73 ds v/khu ifjdfYir /ku ds lank; }kjk izfrdj dk nkok lfEefyr gSA 1958 ts ,y ts 853 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6(C)

       ¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 34 && uqdlkuh dh cM+h jde dk nkok && 15 izfr‘kr izfro"kZ C;kt vf/kd gS && de dj ds 9 izfr‘kr fd;k x;k && okf.kfT;d laO;ogkj && oknh okn lafLFkr fd, tkus ls olwyh rc C;kt dk Hkh gdnkj gSA ¿ iSjk 6(F)

ORDER

Smt. Namjoshi, J. -- 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 148-B/95 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Nav Bharat Corporation, Bombay, the defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal under section 96 of the CPC.

2. It is not in dispute that appellant was duly authorized agent of the respondent to unload the goods imported by the plaintiff-respondent. The appellant was also authorized to send the goods to different places as directed by the plaintiff-respondent. It is also admitted that the appellant was to unload the goods at port Bombay and other ports like Kandla, Calcutta, Madras and Cochin also. .

3. The case of the plaintiff in substance is as under:

As per the directions of the plaintiff-non-applicant the defendant appellant, out of 781.0706 MT of steel material imported through vessel Jiao Chung, 119 MT material was not delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff due to his gross negligence and willful misconduct. A part of it was wrongfully withheld and misappropriated by the defendant's agent M/s. Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ld., Calcutta. and the other part of 47 bundles could not be delivered to the plaintiff due to the willful negligence of the defendant. It was also pleaded that the said M/s. Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. had left over 112 MT steel consignment of the plaintiff unclaimed in the port and held another 43 MT steel in their god-owns for non-payment of the dues. That the defendant did not give funds to clear the consignment by M/s. Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. Out of 47 bundles of steel, 40 were auctioned by the port authorities and seven bundles could not be auctioned. The plaintiff has given details of claim for damages as per paragraph 27.

4. The defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff and stated that it was plaintiff who was negligent in the matter and did not cooperate to clear the steel material from Calcutta- port. Since the defendant had no authority to unload steel from Calcutta port, he had to appoint M/s. Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. as their sub-agent who neglected in unloading the goods. That the plaintiff has directly dealt with the sub-agent, hence. there was an implied delegation, consent and implied authority to the sub-agent to deal on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant has further alleged that in violation of sections 61-62 of the Major Port Trust Act, the authorities. without intimating to the defendant or land the plaintiff, sold few bundles by way of auction. Hence, the defendant has tiled a civil suit in High Court of Calcutta after giving notice on 23rd September 1985 which is yet pending. The defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant has raised three additional grounds relating to territorial jurisdiction. limitation and authority of the person signing and verifying the plaint.

5. In appeal. the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been challenged on the ground that the trial Court committed error of law and facts in decreeing the suit.

6. The questions arising in the case are decided under separate heads:

6(A) Whether the plaint is duly signed and verified ?

The first point to be decided is' whether the officer in charge had authority to sign the plaint and verify the pleadings or not. The plaintiff has pleaded that as per the provisions of section 5 read with section 12 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act 194R the officer in charge Y.K. Shukla. Divisional Engineer was appointed to sign and verify the plaint and pleadings. This fact has not been specifically denied by the defendant in his written statement. What the defendant says is no authority in writing has been tiled by the plaintiff. But that has not been challenged in the statement of Shri Y.K. Shukla (PW 1). There is no reason to disbelieve the version of Shri Y.K. Shukla that he had authority to do so. In Sarjuprasad v. Badriprasad [AIR )939 Nag. 242]. All India Reporter v. Ramchandra [AIR 1961 Bom. 2921 and in Netram v Bh


































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 Back to top