- (1.)PRESENT is the petition by a guarantor who stood as a guarantor for one M/s Gautam Traders the respondent No. 4 herein. The respondent No. 4 held a traders licence for doing the trading activity within the precincts and market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ralegaon. By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Tribunal constituted under section 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity ). By the instant order, the Tribunal has directed that the present petitioner shall pay to the respondent No. 3 a sum of Rs. 11,756. 05 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 29-6-1981 and shall also pay Rs. 1. 000/- additionally as costs of the proceedings.
(2.)THE dispute was somewhere like this. It was claimed by the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal that through his Adat the respondent No. 4 M/s Gautam Traders had purchased the cotton from the agriculturist. He further claimed that he had paid the whole amount to the original agriculturist. However, though he kept on demanding his amount from the purchaser respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 had failed to pay the amount. He, therefore, filed a civil suit but then in the civil suit the Civil Court had held that it had no jurisdiction and the plaint came to be returned. He, therefore, lodged a claim before the Tribunal constituted under section 57 of the Act and impleaded therein the present petitioner as a party defendant on the ground that the present petitioner was a guarantor for the original defendant and the respondent No. 4 herein M/s Gautam Traders. The Tribunal found that in spite of the repeated demands, the trader had not made any payment. It also found that the present petitioner being a guarantor of the trader respondent No. 4 was liable to make good the said payment. The objections raised by the petitioner that since the trader was dead, his guarantee also came to an end was not accepted and the order as stated above came to be passed. It is this award passed by the Tribunal which is in challenge in this petition.
(3.)SHRI B. N. Mohta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, invites our attention to the provisions of section 57 and submits that on the correct reading of section 57 the reference itself was without any jurisdiction and the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. Shri Mohta points out that under the specific language of section 57 (3), it is only when any question arises regarding any sum being due to the Market Committee or any agriculturist that a reference could be made to the Tribunal. He also invites our attention to the definition of the term agriculturist and points out that the original plaintiff had lodged his claim in his capacity not as an agriculturist but as a commission agent. He further points out that reference to the definition of the term agriculturist as defined in section 2 (b) specifically excludes a commission agent. He, therefore, submits that since this was a claim regarding the sum due to a commission agent and not to an agriculturist, there could not have been any reference made nor could the Tribunal under section 57 have any jurisdiction to decide the same.