B.Mukerji, J. - (1.) This is an appeal on behalf of a defendant-company, namely, the National Chamber of Commerce Limited, Kanpur, against a decree made by the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur, on the 16th February, 1951, decreeing a sum of Rs. 63,200/- as principal along with interest at 6 per cent, per annum recoverable from the 28th July, 1947, to the date of the suit: pendente lite and future interest were also awarded by the learned Judge at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum simple. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiffs.
(2.) The plaintiffs sued for the recovery of the aforementioned amount with interest on the ground that the plaintiffs had deposited with the defendant-Chamber of Commerce a sum of Rs. 70,600/between dates in April and June, 1947, because the defendants had assured the plaintiffs that they could deal in forward transactions in respect of oil seeds and that the Chamber would hold the money for the plaintiffs as 'margin money' in respect of the forward contracts which the plaintiffs may enter into with other registered members of the Chamber. The plaintiffs further allege that out of the sum of Rs. 70,600/- they withdrew a sum of Rs. 7,400/-on the 18th June, 1947, with the result that a sum of Rs. 63,200/- was left in deposit with the defendant-Chamber. The plaintiffs went on to allege that sometime after they had made the various deposits, which totalled up to the sum mentioned above, the plaintiffs came to know that there were control orders both of the Provincial as also the Central Governments in force prohibiting transactions in 'futures' in respect of oil seeds, and as such the transactions into which the plaintiffs, without knowing of the prohibition, had on the assurance of the Chamber entered into with other registered members of the Chamber were illegal and unenforceable at law and therefore the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to get back the deposit from the defendant-Chamber. The plaintiffs further allege that they would not have made the deposits if tile defendants had not given them wrong information assuring them that the transactions into which they intended entering with third parties and for which they deposited the margin money with the defendant-Chamber were not prohibited. On the aforementioned broad allegations, the plaintiffs claimed the relief which we have already indicated above.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit. They denied that there was any misrepresentation by them in regard to the control orders controlling deals in oil seeds. Further, they contended that the defendants themselves were not aware that there was any subsisting control order which prohibited forward contracts in oil seeds and therefore they said that the money had not been taken on any misrepresentation. They further alleged that on the publication of a pressnote dated the 9th June, 1947, issued under the signature of Mr. G. A. Haig, Secretary to the United Provinces Government, the plaintiffs came to know that there was a prohibition in regard to dealing in forward contracts in oil seeds, etc., and that they, therefore, settled the transactions, as they said they were entitled to, at the market rate, and on this ground they contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the money. The defendants raised the contention that the money having been paid under the bylaws of the Chamber and the plaintiffs having been a member of the Chamber, they could not get back the money. The defendants raised several other defences to the plaintiffs' claim.;