NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION Vs. SUBHKARANDAS CHIRANJILAL
LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-35
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 27,1996

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
SUBHKARANDAS CHIRANJILAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

P.K. KALASAMI NADAR V. K.PONNUSWAMI MUDALIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
KONDA RM ESWARA IYER AND SONS VS. MADRAS BANGALORE TRANSPORT CO [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

K.Ramamoorthy - (1.)National Textile Corporation (Delhi Punjab &Rajasthan) Ltd., Unit - Ajudhia Textile Mills has filed this suit against the three defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,47,106.03. Very briefly stated the facts are these. The second defendant through the first defendant M/s. Subhkarandas Chiranjilal placed the indents with the plaintiff which are Ex. P.9 and P.10 for the purchase of yarn. Pursuant to the indents Ex. P.9 and P.IO plaintiff despatched the goods to the second defendant to a place called Maunath Bhanjan in the District of Azamgarh through the third defendant Delhi Kanpur Gondia Transport Co. Regd., the carrier.
(2.)The plaintiff prepared G/Rs, the bills and the hundies and were sent through the Bank. Ex. P.29 to P.33 are the hundies and Ex. D.11 to D.15 are the G/Rs First defendant, the commission agent, was informed about second defendant not having honoured the hundies. The first defendant requested the plaintiff to redraw the hundies. As per the directions of the first defendant the plaintiff redrew the hundies and they are evidenced by Ex.P.34 to P.38. This time also the second defendant did not chose to honour them. Under Ex. D.2 and D.3 notices were sent to defendants 2 and 3. Under Ex. P.39 letter was also sent to third defendant. A copy of Ex. P.39 was sent to defendant No. 1 also. Then Ex. P.42 legal notice was sent to the third defendant. The goods in the custody of the third defendant were not sent back to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 did not pay the value also.
(3.)It appears from the record that the first defendant was appointed as selling agent of the plaintiff w.e.f. 16.4.1974 as evidenced by Ex. P.2 dated 6.12.1974. The first defendant was acting as selling agent of Ajudhia Textile Mills which was taken over by the plaintiff. That was perhaps the reason why the plaintiff appointed the first defendant as the commission agent. As the defendants had neither returned the goods nor paid the value thereof, the suit was instituted.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.