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

1975 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
T. K. Basu, J
Jaiswal Coal Company – Appellant
Versus
Fatehganj Co - operative Marketing Society Limited – Respondent
Suit No. 107 of 1970



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. S. Pal, Mr. Dipankar Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. T. K. Biswas, Mr. B. R. Lodge

The court ruled that the Special Referee exceeded authority by failing to comply with procedural requirements, leading to a nullification of the report due to lack of legal evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Special Referee - Court's jurisdiction regarding secret profits - The Special Referee failed to follow procedural rules for reference, exceeding authority. (Paras 18, 25, 42, 59)

(B) Evidence - The report by the Special Referee lacks legal evidence, constituting a perverse conclusion. (Paras 34, 59)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a partnership firm, sought to enforce a decree against the defendant society for profits through coal sales per an agreement, leading to an inquiry about alleged secret profits made by the society.

Findings of Court:
The report by the Special Referee was set aside, deeming it perverse due to noncompliance with laws and absence of legal evidence. Further, the society was awarded costs.

Issues: The court examined if the Special Referee had jurisdiction to investigate secret profits and whether the society was deprived of due process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Special Referee exceeded his authority by conducting inquiries without the society's knowledge, violating procedural layers outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure. The assertion of inherent jurisdiction to determine secret profits was deemed unfounded, necessitating remand for further proceedings.

Result: The report of the Special Referee is set aside; the plaintiff's application is dismissed while costs in favor of the defendant society are awarded.

Table of Content
1. establishment of the contractual relationship between parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. details of the suit instituted for payment recovery. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. procedural updates regarding the legal process. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. discussion on the validity of the special referee's report. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. analysis of reference rules applicability. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. clarification on the definition of court officers. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. limitations on the powers of special referees. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
8. confirmation of existing procedural practices. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
9. discussion on shortcomings in procedural adherence. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
10. criteria for determining validity of special referee’s report. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
11. evaluation of legal standards regarding commissions. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
12. assessment of the special referee's investigatory powers. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
13. challenges to the credibility of the special referee’s findings. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
14. court's limitations in appointing a special referee. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
15. jurisdictional boundaries on commissions for secret profits. (Para 62 , 63 , 64)
16. court debates on jurisdiction over special inquiries. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
17. final ruling and dismissal of applications. (Para 69 , 70)

1. I have before me two motions relating to the final report made by an Advocate of this Court as Special Referee. An application for confirmation of the report has been made by the plaintiff Jaiswal Coal Company. Another application has been made by the defendant Fatehganj Co - operative Marketing Society Limited for setting aside the report or declaring the report as null and void.

2. The applications have been made under the facts and circumstances as hereunder.

3. Jaiswal Coal Company (I shall shortly call 'the firm') is a partnership firm, duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act , 1932. The firm carries on business at Gandhi House at No. 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta.

4. Fatehganj Co - operative Marketing Society Limited (I shall shortly call 'the society') is a co - operative society with limited liability within the meaning of Uttar Pradesh Co - operative Societies Act , 1965 having its registered office and carrying on business at Fatehganj Galamandir, Lal Bag, Faizabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. On September 12, 1964, by an agreement in writing between the firm and the society, the firm agreed to supply coal to the society and the society agreed to act as selling agent of the firm in the district of Faizabad, inter alia, on certain terms and conditions. In respect of the coal supplied to Faizabad, the society will pay the railway freight, unloading, loading, transport and stacking charges upto the place of stacking. The coal will be sold to the consumers by the society at such rate as fixed by the firm. The society will realise the sale proceeds of coal on behalf of the firm. From the sale proceeds the society will deduct the investment In respect of the railway freight, unloading, administrative charges and will pay the surplus to the firm. The firm will pay Rs. 1.50 paise per tonne as commission on the sale proceeds of the coal to the society.

6. In September 1964, it was agreed that the firm would pay to the society as commission at the rate of Re. 0.50 paise per tonne which the society would deduct from the sale proceeds of the coal payable to the firm and the society will be entitled to realise the balance of commission at the rate of Re. 1/- per tonne directly from the consumers.

7. Between January 19, 1965 and March 31, 1967, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the firm supplied 35,152 tonnes and 5 quintals of coal, the sale proceeds of which at the rate fixed by the firm was Rupees 8,50,615.18 paise. The society paid to the firm Rs. 8,30,822.80 paise.

8. On March 2, 1970, the firm instituted this suit against the society
























































































































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