JULLUNDUR EX-SERVICEMEN MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Vs. MUNI LAL SHARMA
LAWS(P&H)-1986-4-14
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 10,1986

JULLUNDUR EX-SERVICEMEN MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Appellant
VERSUS
MUNI LAL SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) MUNI Lal Sharma, sole proprietor of M/s. Saraswati Resin and Chemical Works, entrusted 45 barrels containing nine thousand liters of turpentine oil worth Rs 9630/- at the rate of Re. 1. 07 per litre to M/s S. B. Saini Brothers, who are the agents of the Jullundur Ex-Servicemen Motor Transport Co-operative Society for their transport to Bombay. Muni Lal Sharma got G. R. No. 270579 dated 27-8-1968 to be delivered to self at Bombay. There was a contract by Muni Lal Sharma for the delivery of the turpentine oil to M/s S. H. Kalkar and Co. Private Limited, Bombay. The goods receipt was sent by Muni Lal Sharma through ha bankers for being presented to the Bombay firm on payment of the price of the goods and to make the endorsement in favour of the Bombay firm. The bankers presented the documents to the Bombay firm and the Bombay firm on payment of the price released the documents along with the goods receipt duly endorsed in their favour. When they were not supplied the barrels of turpentine oil, they represented to the sender. When he got in touch with the agent of the transport company it transpired that the goods had not been sent to Bombay. The senders were assured that the goods would be traced and delivered.
(2.) SINCE it was taking time, the Bombay firm asked the senders to deliver the requisite quantity of turpentine oil As a result Muni Lal Sharma dispatched fresh consignment of 45 barrels of turpentine oil to the Bombay firm through another transport company in replacement of those forty five barrels. On receipt of the goods the Bombay firm endorsed back the goods receipt in favour of Muni Lal Sharma regarding the first consignment and returned the relevant documents along with the goods receipt to deal with the transport company and its agent. When in spite of requests neither the turpentine oil was returned nor payment was made, the present suit was instituted.
(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit This is second appeal by the transport company and its agent;


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