The Committee companysisted of Mr. R. C. Jall as Chairman, and Seth Hiralal and the plaintiff as members.
Govindram was a rich man and a millionaire.
We may here state the primary facts and the findings of the Division Bench and the Full Bench.
On February 8, 1941, the Arbitrator gave an award, inter alia deciding that Govindram Seksaria should buy up the five annas shares of Brijlal Ramjidas and Bilasrai Joharmal at par and that the latter should sell their respective shares of annas two and a half each in the rupee at par and also sell the debentures held by them to Govindram Seksaria at par.
Dina Nath.
In the meantime, the partners referred their differences to the arbitration of Col.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 24, 1958, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in Civil Special Appeal No.
B. Agarwala, J. D. Patel, J. B. Dadachanji 0.
3 of 1950.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
Thereafter the plaintiff filed an appeal under S. 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act, 1949, as it stood before it was amended by Madhya Bharat Act No.
In 1942 Govindram suggested to the plaintiff that the share to be sold to him should be reduced to one and a half annas, but the plaintiff did number accept the suggestion.
795 of 1963.
4, which was as follows Was the agreement to sell the two and a half annas share a bribe offered by the deceased Seth Govindram to the plaintiff to write a report favourable to him, the plaintiff being a member of the Committee of three persons appointed by the Directors of the Malwa Mills, Indore to enquire into and report on the management of the Mills by Seth Govindram?
A day or two after the receipt of this letter by the plaintiff Govindram met him at his house and made him an offer of making him a partner of the managing agency firm by assigning two and half annas shares out of the share of Brijlal and Bilasrai which he was to get under the award.
On the same date Govindram addressed a similar letter to the plaintiff.
Dina Nath, the Prime Minister of the former Holkar State.
The Board of Directors of the Company appointed a Committee in November 1940 to enquire into certain allegations made against Govindram Seksaria, Brijlal and Bilasrai.
Sanghi, J., decreed the suit on June 11, 1948.
They failed before the Bombay High Court and ultimately before the Privy Council.
The plaintiff had numberprevious experience of the working of any Mill and had never been a managing agent of any textile mill.
The Full Bench held that the appeal was number companypetent, but this Court, on appeal, held that the appeal was companypetent and remitted the case to the High Court for decision on merits.
defendants were being tried on a criminal charge.
Serious disputes arose between the partners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Special Appeal No.
On November 6, 1947, the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On February 8, 1941, Govindram met Mr. Jall, and offered to sell to him one anna share, which he rejected saying that as he was the member of the Enquiry Committee, it would look as if he was making the offer to please him.
5 of 1949.
P. Amin, C. B. Sanghi V. M. Amin and L N. Shroff, for the respondents.
When this appeal came up for hearing before a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a preliminary objection as to the companypetency of the appeal was taken on behalf of the defendants respon dents.
On November 5, 1947, a deed of assignment of the four annas share of Brijlal and Bilasrai was executed in favour of the defendants as legal representatives of Govindram, who had died in the meantime in May 1946.
The matter is number before us.
5 of 1949, and arises out of a suit filed by the appellant, Seth Gulabchand, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, against heirs and legal representatives of Seth Govindram Seksaria, on the original side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement dated February 28, 1941, entered into between the plaintiff and the deceased Govindram.
Govindram Seksaria, Brijlal Ramjidas, Bilasrai Joharmal and four other persons entered into a deed of partnership on July 17, 1935 for carrying on the business of acting as Managing Agents and Selling Agents of Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd., a companypany owning a textile mill in Indore.
Later, in 1942, when Mr. Jall questioned Govindram about the intended reduction in the share which was to be sold to the plaintiff, Govindram re plied that he did number really intend to give any share to the plaintiff or anyone and that he proposed to give the entire four annas share to the Holkar State by way of charity.
The Division Bench accepted the defendants appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of Sanghi, J., and dismissed the plaintiffs suit as also his cross appeal.
The Committee gave its final report on April 7, 1941, which was favourable to Govindram, although the interim report dated December 16, 1940, was numbere too favourable to him.
On remand the Full Bench upheld the decision of the Division Bench and dismissed the appeal.
After the award was made Govindram addressed a letter to Mr. Jall as a member of the Enquiry Committee on February 13, 1941, intimating to him that the Prime Minister of the Holkar State had given an award on February 8, 1941, in his favour, and forwarding a companyy of the award.
The next day the plaintiff accepted the offer and on February 28, 1941, the agreement was companycluded between the parties.
A day before the agreement was signed by the parties, Gulabchand, Plaintiff, addressed a letter to Mr. Jall, the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee, on February 27, 1941, for holding the meetings of the Committee daily so as to expedite its report.
Against this judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal to a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court and the plaintiff also preferred a cross appeal.
On February 12, 1941, Brijlal and Bilasrai instituted a suit in the Bombay High Court against Govindram and other partners of the Managing Agency companytesting the validity of the award made by Col.
Both the Division Bench and the Full Bench on appeal have held this issue to be proved and it is companymon ground that if the decision of the Full Bench on this issue cannot be successfully assailed, numberfurther point arises and the appeal must fail.
