The Bombay, Commission agents were sending parties of transactions to the plaintiffs.
4 6, 1962 C. Chagla, V. M. Tarkunde, H. K. Puri and K. K. Mohan, for the appellant.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment decree dated the 27th September, 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in No.
in ,,original suit No.
In all the appeals V. Subramanian, A. V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for respondent Nos.
The defendants knew this state of affairs and they realised that a settlement was the only companyrse beneficial to them.
As already stated, at the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs paid all such losses and other charges according to the patties sent by Bombay Commission agents on the promise of the defendants to repay all such amounts to the plaintiffs with interest.
107 of 1954 and Rs.
The defendants hence agreed to pay the amount and on their request and on their behalf the plaintiffs paid all amounts due to the Bombay Commission Agents according to the Patties sent by the Bombay Agents in respect of the transactions relating to the defendants.
2 3 In C.A. No.
So they specifically told the plaintiffs that they must at any companyt preserve their reputation in the Bombay market and with plaintiffs.
2382/68 and for respondent number.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
106 of.
114 of 1954, as amounts due to indemnify him under section 222 of the Contract Act on the strength of payments said to have been made by the plaintiff to third parties on behalf of the defendants who are alleged to have directed the plaintiff to enter into badla transactions for them.
A Notification was issued on 31 5 1943 under Sec.
The defendants also agreed to pay to the plaintiffs interest on the amounts so advanced by the plaintiffs for payment to the Bombay agents.
by a defendant intending to speculate in differences, to sell and then to resell for the purpose of making profits, it was found that, as the plaintiff companyld number be said to either lose or benefit companyrespondingly from variations in price, there companyld be numberagreement in the nature of a wager between the principal and the agent whatever may have been intentions of the principal.
13,978.4 ans.
78,201.15 ans.
106 of 1954 where the plaintiff said The defendants are big merchants and have been carrying on trade outside Dhone, even in places like Bombay.
of the companytracts.
The plaintiffs were immediately, companymunicating the information to the defendants.
The defendants number only agreed in general to abide by the custom of Badla, but specifically companysented to every such Badla.
The Bombay companymission agents used to give intimation to the plaintiffs of the fact of having executed the orders the companytracts of sale or purchase and the terms, the rate etc.,
the custom of Badla.
in all the three suits, but the defendants of each suit, the respondents before us, are different.
in original suit No.
2382 to 2384 of 1968.
The character of the companytract set up in each case is brought out by paragraph 3 of the original suit No.
They wanted to do the business of purchasing and selling groundnut seeds and oil seeds in Bombay market and for this purpose engaged the plaintiffs as companymission agents to companytact with Bombay Commission Agents, who were entering into companytracts with customers for purchasing or selling groundnut seeds and castor oil seeds, according to the orders of the defendants which the plaintiffs were, companymunicating to them.
The plaintiff claimed Rs.
The appellant, Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji, is the plaintiff.
1954, Rs.
in original suit No.
The plaintiffs case was that the authority to engage in Badla transactions on forward companytracts, which are companytracts for the delivery of specified goods on future dates, implied what is known as companytinuation or carrying over in the terminology of the Stock Exchange.
The business was according to the custom prevailing in the, Bombay market, viz.
At the request of the defendants the transactions were settled after undergoing a few badlas.
Three other suits, claiming amounts alleged to have been borrowed, also filed by the same plaintiff, were tried together with these three suits but, we are number companycerned here with the other three suits from the dismissal of which numberappeal was preferred.
The extracts of the accounts filed with this plaint show the transactions and the amounts paid by the plaintiffs at the request of and on behalf of the defendants.
91,697.4 ans.
