VALAPAD CO-OPERATIVE STORES Vs. K H SRINEVASA IYER BROTHERS PALGHAT
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VALAPAD CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD.
K.H.SRINEVASA IYER BROTHERS, PALGHAT
Referred Judgements :-
FLEMYNG V. HECTOR
HAMBRO V. BURNARD
HOUGHTON AND CO. V. NORTHARD LOWE AND WILLS LTD.
KREDIT BANK CASSEL G.M.B.H. V. SCHENKERS LTD.
PAZHANIAPPA V. S.I.P.AND I.CO.LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)These appeals arise from the decrees in O. S. 477 of 1955 and 495 of 1955 respectively on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat. Both these cases were tried together and the evidence was taken in O. S. 477 of 1955. The Valappad Cooperative Stores Ltd., a Society registered under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act (Act VI of 1932) hereinafter called the Society is the defendant in both cases. The two suits were instituted for recovery of money by the two different plaintiffs for the purchase of goods by the Society from them. The bills on which the claim of the plaintiff in O. S. 477 of 1955 was based are Exts. B 1 to B 3 dated 11-4-1955 and those on which claim of the plaintiff in O. S. 495 of 1955 was based are Exts. B 35 to B 37 dated 9-3-1955. The case of the plaintiffs was that the Society purchased goods from them and was indebted for the amounts claimed in the respective plaints.
(2.)The substantial defence raised by the defendant was that the Secretary of the Society was entrusted with funds for purchasing the goods, that he had no authority to purchase the goods on credit, that the Secretary had misappropriated the funds entrusted by the Society for purchasing goods and that as the Secretary was not authorised to purchase goods on credit the defendant was not liable for the purchase price claimed.
(3.)The Trial Court dismissed the suits finding that the Society did not authorise the Secretary to purchase goods on credit and that the Society had not held out that the Secretary had authority in the ordinary course of his employment, to purchase goods on credit from the plaintiffs. In appeal, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the purchases made by the Secretary were within the scope of his authority and that the Society was bound by the act of its authorised representative and therefore decreed the suits. It is against these decrees that the present appeals have been filed by the defendant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.