STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAM BALLABH DAS JALAN
LAWS(PAT)-1960-1-10
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on January 22,1960

STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
VERSUS
RAM BALLABH DAS JALAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION V. BUTLER [REFERRED TO]
CALLANDER V. HOWARD [REFERRED TO]
NAHANI BAI V. NATHU BHAU [REFERRED TO]
ISHAR DAS V. HARKISHAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
MADIMULLA V. CHANNAPPA [REFERRED TO]
BHATU DAS V. MT. BIBI IFFATUN NISHA [REFERRED TO]
VISHRAM ARJUN V. SHANKARIAH [REFERRED TO]
RAMDIN SINGH VS. RAMPARICHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KSHETRA NATH SIKDAR VS. HARASUKDAS BALKISSEN DAS [REFERRED TO]
BISHUN CHAND VS. GIRDHARI LAL [REFERRED TO]
MADHO PRASAD VS. GOURI DUTT GENESH LAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

CENTRAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MPH)-1966-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1966-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED GANDHINAGAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1993-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM LADHURAM RAMESHWARDAYAL VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI SHIVPURI [LAWS(MPH)-1977-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. JMC PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. BHAGYANAGAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [LAWS(APH)-2012-10-147] [REFERRED TO]
AMARENDRA ARYA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-9-102] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Choudhary, J. - (1.)In the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, the plaintiff appellant, the State of Bihar, claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 42,926-3-8 from the defendants as being partners of the firm Rum-ballabh Motilal dealing in foodgrains. According to the case of the plaintiff the said firm entered into various contracts for purchase of Government stocks of foodgrains etc., and had also supplied foodgrains to the Regional Grain Supply Officer, Gaya as purchasing agents on behalf of the said authority. In pursuance of the above contracts, the defendants purchased various quantities of foodgrains from the plaintiff on different dates the price of which had been realised in full except in respect of two items, namely, (1) the purchase of 10,500 maunds of rice under agreement dated 13-3-1945, and (2) the purchase at auction sale of 58,916 empty bags on 3-3-1945. The total price of 10,500 maunds of rice amounted to Rs. 1,08,846-14-0, out of which a sum of Rs. 81,773-15-9 was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 26,072-14-3 remained unpaid. The total price of 58916 empty bags amounted to Rs. 18,853-2-0, out of which Rs. 10,000/- had been paid to the plaintiff as earnest money, and the balance of Rs. 8,853-2-0 remained unpaid. The total claim on these two counts, therefore, came to Rs. 34,923-0-3. The plaintiff had also supplied six tarpaulins to the defendants, out of which they returned five, but did not return one, and the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 172-8-0 as the price for the same. The plaintiff claimed a further sum of Rs. 7,755-3-0 for supply of 700 maunds of rice, as shown in schedule C to the plaint, including a sum of Rs. 747-11-0 as commission and incidental charges. The total thus came to Rs. 42,853-11-3; but due to some mistake in accounting the claim was made for a sum of Rs. 42,926-3-8.
(2.)It appears that by 16-9-1945, a sum of Rs. 1,83,384-0-0 was found due from the defendants to the Regional Grain Supply Officer, Gaya, and a sum of Rs. 48,658-0-0 was standing to the credit of the defendants against the said Regional Grain Supply Officer. After adjusting the above sum of Rs. 48,658-0-0, a sum of Rs. 1,34,726-0-0 was found due from the defendants to the Regional Grain Supply Officer. A demand for the above sum was made from the defendants by a letter, exhibit 2(b)(1) dated 25-9-1945, to which the firm replied on the same day by a letter, exhibit 2(c), requesting the Regional Grain Supply Officer to realise certain dues of the firm from the Bank of Bihar and the Food Supply Officer of the East Indian Railway, Dinapore, and offered to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000-0-0 in cash promising to pay the balance, if any, as soon as possible. It further appears that a sum of Rs. 30,000-0-0 was realised from the Bank of Bihar which was credited to the account of the defendants, after deducting a sum of Rs. 18-12-0 paid as bank charges. It also appears that, before the institution of the suit, the "Food Supply Officer of the East Indian Railway, Dinapore offered to pay a sum of Rs. 4,835-0-0 and actually paid the said sum, but after the institution of the suit. Thus deducting from the above sum of Rs. 1,34,726-0-0 the two sums of Rs. 70,000-0-0 and Rs. 30,000-0-0, stated above, the balance comes to Rs. 34,726-0-0. But due to some mistake somewhere the claim has been made for Rs. 34,926-0-3 as representing the first two items of the claim. After the receipt of the sum or Rs. 4,835-0-0 from the East Indian Railway, the claim on these two counts is reduced to a sum of Rs. 30,091-0-3.
(3.)Defendant No. 2 did not appear, and the suit was contested only by defendant No. 1. The pleas taken by him are that he was not a partner with defendant No. 2 of the firm and had nbt authorised him to enter into any contract with the plaintiff; that he was not bound by any deliveries made to defendant No. 2; that the price charged was in excess of the controlled rates; and that any contract to pay at a rate in excess of the controlled rates was illegal.


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