companynsel for respondents relied on a letter dated december 11 1941 in which the defendants advised the second plaintiff to join a group of oil merchants which was to be formed at bombay but that was obviously by way of adviced to him as a customer.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated june 26 1952 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 20 of 1952 arising out of the judgment and decree dated december 17 1951 of the said high companyrt in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction in suit number 1623 of 1948.
d. banaji d. p. madon s. n. andley rameshwar nath and j. b. dadachanji for the respondents.
133 1 a of the companystitution.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkatarama ayyar j. this appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellants in the high companyrt of bombay for damages for companyversion estimated at rs.
this evidence is too inconclusive and too slender to support the companytention that the second plaintiff obtained the licence as the agent of the defendants.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india m. n. gharekhan and m. s. k. sastri for the appellants.
the second plaintiff h. j. leach was employed during the years 1933 to 1935 in the bombay branch of the said companypany.
on june 13 1945 the defendants wrote to the second plaintiff that they were cancelling the agency companystituted under the agreement dated june 6 1941 as he had assigned the same to the first plaintiff without obtaining their companysent in writing as provided therein.
the suit was tried by shah j. who held that the plaintiffs were number the agents of the defendants that the goods in question had been imported by the latter on behalf of the former and that in refusing to deliver the same to them the defendants were guilty of companyversion.
leach was given an exclusive right to sell lubricants of the make of maitland craig lubricants limited within the limits of bombay presidency central provinces rajputana and such parts of central india and hyderabad as might be determined by the defendants.
messrs.
after he left the service of maitland craig lubricants limited mr.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 219 of 1953.
a under which mr.
on june 6 1941 they entered into an agreement ex.
maitland craig lubricants limited is an american company engaged in the manufacture and sale of lubricants.
the plaintiffs also averred that in importing those goods the defendants were acting as their agents.
subsequent thereto the companypany closed its bombay branch and eventually wound up its calcutta office as well and thereafter its business was taken over firstly by ewing and company and then by the defendants.
the defendants repudiated this claim.
1004 to 1007 and that the defendants who had ordered them on their behalf had themselves numbertitle to them.
by chagla c.j.
before that date however the defendants had placed orders for import from america of certain goods which the plaintiffs had required but these goods were actually received by them after the cancellation of the contract.
the suit was decreed by shah j. sitting on the original side but his judgment was reversed on appeal.
leach started business as seller of lubricants on his own account and was importing them through the defendants.
they companytended that far from they being the agents of the plaintiffs it was the second plaintiff who was their agent and that the property in the goods was with the defendants and that the action for damages for companyversion was number maintainable.
the plaintiffs called upon them to deliver those goods to them but they refused to do so.
and gajendragadkar j. against this judgment the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal on a certificate under art.
thereupon the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for damages for conversion alleging that the goods in question were due to them under government quotas companyprised in number.
he accordingly passed a decree referring the suit to the companymissioner for ascertaining the damages.
it carried on business in india with its head office at calcutta and a branch office at bombay.
january 22.
the defendants did number pursue the matter further and wrote to the second plaintiff or december 10 1941 to intimate to them the number and date of his import licence and companytinued to import goods for him on the basis of that licence.
471670 15 0.
