In this view of the matter, as the power to institute the suit had to be proved, copy of Resolution No. 5 passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of Escorts Limited (plaintiff) held on 16th October, 1965 was placed on record, as this was not enough, the original minutes book containing Resolution No. 5 dated 16.10.1965 was brought to Court. I saw the original minutes book. It contains the aforesaid Resolution No. 5 dated 16.10.1965. This Resolution approves the draft Power of Attorney which was proposed to be granted. The manner of proving the said Resolution which has been adopted by the plaintiff is an affidavit of Mr. P.N. Arora, son of Mr. Lekh Raj, being affidavit dated 22nd March, 1990. In that affidavit, it is stated that the minutes of the Board of Directors have been written in the hands of Ms. Amarjit Kaur, who is the representative of the plaintiff company. The deponent says that he can identify the handwriting of the said Amarjit Kaur.
(14) The manner in which such a resolution of the Board of Directors of Companies are to be proved, is clearly stated by Hardayal Hardy, J. in a judgment passed in Suit No. 469 of 1986 in M/s. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Observer Publications (P) Ltd. and others. In this judgment it has been stated that "the only way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of a company is that the minutes book in which the said resolution was recorded as having been passed should be produced in Court as that alone can form evidence of the fact under section 194 of the Act". Section 194 of the Companies Act reads as under :
"194.Minutes of meetings kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193 shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein".
(15) In view of the fact that the minutes book of the plaintiff has been produced before me, after seeing the same I am satisfied that resolution No. 5 was passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16th October, 1965. The plaintiff has thus proved the conferment of the powers of attorney to Shri Charanjit Singh with power to institute the suit. By virtue of provisions of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Principal Officer can sign and verify the plaint, it is also established that Charanjit Singh is a principal officer of the plaintiff company, who can as such officer, sign and verify the plaint in suit, he is also authorised to institute this suit by virtue of the power of attorney dated 28.1.1966.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suit No. 2043 of 1987
Decided On: 20.07.1990
Escorts Limited Vs. Sai Autos and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mahinder Narain, J.
Citation:(1991) 72 Com cases 483
(1) The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at H-2, Connaught Circus New Delhi, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 3,38,916.00 against four defendants.
(2) Defendant No. 1 is M/s. Sai Autos; defendant No. 2 is Mr. K. Neela Mohan Rao, partner and proprietor of M/s. Sai Autos. Defendant No 3 Sri Y. Venkateswar Rao is also partner and proprietor of M/s. Sai Autos and defendant No. 4 is Mr. Bollam Venkatramaiah. '
(3) M/S. Sai Auto are stated to have been dealers at Karim Nagar (Andhra Pradesh) for the sale of Ford Tractors made by the plaintiff company.
(4) It is the case of the plaintiff company that Mr. Charanjit Singh who has signed and verified the plaint, is the Principal Officer as also the Vice-President arid Secretary of the plaintiff company, and is authorised to sign verify the plaint and file the present suit and to prosecute the same on behalf of the plaintiff company in 'terms of the General Power of Attorney dated 28th January, 1966 granted to him by the plaintiff company, and registered in the books and records of the Sub Registrar New Delhi at No. 164 in Additional Book No. 4, Volume No 238 on pages to 101 on 31st January 1966.
(5) It is asserted in the plaint that a Ford Tractor, manufactured by the plaintiff, was purchased by defendant No. 4. The plaintiff says that this was sale on credit.
(6) The plaintiff has filed affidavit-evidence of its Officers, by which the said transaction of sale of the tractor, to the defendant No. 4, stands proved.
(7) It is stated in the affidavit that defendant No. 4 actually paid the money to the defendants I to 3 vide his cheque dated 31st July. 1986. It is stated that this cheque was collected by defendants 1 to 3 illegally and unauthorisedly. Defendants 1 to 3 instead of paying the money realised to the plaintiff company, kept the money themselves. It is also asserted in the affidavit that as the defendant No. 4' was bound to pay the money directly to the plaintiff he was liable to pay the price of the tractor purchased by him to the plaintiff company, which he had failed to do.
(8) During the course of arguments it was stressed that defendant No. 4 was liable for the price of the tractor, which amount he had wrongly paid to the defendants 1 to 3. In the plaint it is clearly asserted that the decree for payment of the suit amount may be passed against defendants 1 to 3, and only in the alternative the decree may be passed against defendant No. 4. During the course of arguments I had told the counsel for the plaintiff that it would be a travesty of justice if the defendant was to be made to pay again for the tractor which he had admitted paid for to defendant 1 to 3, by passing a decree against him. The counsel for the plaintiff, very fairly, gave up this claim made against defendant No. 4. The claim against defendant No. 4, in this suit, is therefore, dismissed.
(9) In as much as the power of attorney which is relied upon by the plaintiff company, executed on the 28th day of January, 1966 by Mrs. Raj's Nanda and Sodhi Kartar Singh and execution whereof was admitted before the Registrar of Assurance, it was asserted that power to institute suit stands proved.
(10) During the course of arguments, which were heard ex-parte, I pointed out to counsel that the presumption as to due execution of power of attorney was available only to those Power of Attorneys which were executed in accordance with the provisions of Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act and as Power of Attorney dated 28.1.66 was not in accordance with the provisions of that Section, no presumption can arise with respect thereto.
(11) Section 85 of the Evidence Act provides that "the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Consul or Vice-Consul or representative of the (Central Government) was so executed and authenticated".
(12) In as much as the power of attorney in question was not registered before the Notary Public or any Court Judge, Magistrate, Consul or Vice Consul or representative of the Central Government, no presumption can arise with respect to it as Registrar of Assurances is not one of the persons named in Section 85 of the Evidence Act. As presumption regarding its due execution of the power of attorney dt. 28,1.66 could not be raised, the benefits of Section 85 of the Evidence Act could not be availed vis-a-vis the said power of Attorney, Counsel for the plaintiff did not dispute, he could not, that Registrar of Assurances is not a "representative" of the Central Government. He is a person who discharges statutory functions under the Registration Act.
(13) In this view of the matter, as the power to institute the suit had to be proved, copy of Resolution No. 5 passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of Escorts Limited (plaintiff) held on 16th October, 1965 was placed on record, as this was not enough, the original minutes book containing Resolution No. 5 dated 16.10.1965 was brought to Court. I saw the original minutes book. It contains the aforesaid Resolution No. 5 dated 16.10.1965. This Resolution approves the draft Power of Attorney which was proposed to be granted. The manner of proving the said Resolution which has been adopted by the plaintiff is an affidavit of Mr. P.N. Arora, son of Mr. Lekh Raj, being affidavit dated 22nd March, 1990. In that affidavit, it is stated that the minutes of the Board of Directors have been written in the hands of Ms. Amarjit Kaur, who is the representative of the plaintiff company. The deponent says that he can identify the handwriting of the said Amarjit Kaur.
(14) The manner in which such a resolution of the Board of Directors of Companies are to be proved, is clearly stated by Hardayal Hardy, J. in a judgment passed in Suit No. 469 of 1986 in M/s. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Observer Publications (P) Ltd. and others. In this judgment it has been stated that "the only way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of a company is that the minutes book in which the said resolution was recorded as having been passed should be produced in Court as that alone can form evidence of the fact under section 194 of the Act". Section 194 of the Companies Act reads as under :
"194.Minutes of meetings kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193 shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein".
(15) In view of the fact that the minutes book of the plaintiff has been produced before me, after seeing the same I am satisfied that resolution No. 5 was passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16th October, 1965. The plaintiff has thus proved the conferment of the powers of attorney to Shri Charanjit Singh with power to institute the suit. By virtue of provisions of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Principal Officer can sign and verify the plaint, it is also established that Charanjit Singh is a principal officer of the plaintiff company, who can as such officer, sign and verify the plaint in suit, he is also authorised to institute this suit by virtue of the power of attorney dated 28.1.1966.
(16) The next question that arises is what amount is due from defendants No. to 3 to the plaintiff company. For this purpose, copies of accounts have been produced by the plaintiff company. Copies of the accounts produced by the plaintiff company deals with the transaction between the plaintiff defendants No. to 3. In none of the affidavits filed by the plaintiff, have these accounts been proved in accordance with the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, which sets out the manner in which any person can be charged with liability on accounts, and how the liability is to be proved.
(17) Section 34 of the Evidence Act reads as under:.
"ENTRIES in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but each statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability".
(18) In view of the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act, entries in the books of account are not alone sufficient evidence to charge any person With liability. Nor can copies of entries in the books of account be sufficient to charge any person with liability. The manner in which entries in the books df account are to be proved to charge any person with liability, has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0031/1966 : [1967]1SCR898a (Chandradhar Goswami & others v. Gauhati Bank Ltd.), the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the entries in the books of account are not primary evidence of indebted- ness. A plaintiff has to lead evidence in the shape of vouchers, bills etc. to prove the entries in the books of account.
(19) In this view of the matter, neither the copy of the ledger account, nor the ledgers themselves, in respect of account of defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 is enough evidence to charge them with liability, and no decree can be passed against the defendants on the basis thereof.
(20) Learned counsel for the plaintiff then referred to the affidavit which had been filed in which it has been stated that defendants No. I to 3 sent the cheques for Rs. 1,06,000.00 being the cheque dated 31st July, 1966 for the purpose of liquidating the amount due, which has been received from defendant No. 4 by defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, but had not been paid to the plaintiff. The said cheque was dishonoured when presented, and has been filed along with the documents, and has been proved by the affidavit of Mr. J.L. Chawla dated 22nd March, 1990. The dishonoured cheque is on record, and is marked as Ex. P. 2/6. The memo of dishonour is Ex. P. 2/5. The counsel for the plaintiff states that after this cheque was dishonoured, further, a reference was made to defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 about the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 1,06,000.00 . In lieu of the dishonoured cheque of Rs. I -06,000.00 , two cheques of Rs. 50.000.00 and the other for Rs. 36.000.00 dated 30th August, 1986 and 30th September, 1986 respectively, were sent by defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. The said cheques are marked as Ex. Public Witness 2/7 and Ex. Public Witness 2/8 These two cheques also, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured and the memo of dishonour is marked as Ex. Public Witness 2/9.
(21) The aforesaid cheques Ex. Public Witness 2/6, Ex. Public Witness 2/7 and Ex. Public Witness 2/8 go 'to show that defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 owed a sum of Rs. l,06,000.00 to the plaintiff company, and that they purported to pay the same by giving a cheque of Rs. l,06,000.00 and thereafter by giving two cheques ; one of Rs. 50,000.00 and the other for Rs. 56,fl00.00 . The dishonour of the said cheques indicate that the said amount which was due to the plaintiff remained unpaid and the plaintiff is entitled to the payment of Rs. 1,06,000 in lieu of the price of the tractor which was supplied to defendant No. 4, who paid its price to defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, but defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 failed to give the same to the plaintiff who was actually entitled to receive the said price. The said cheques are an admission and proof of indebtedness of defendants No. 1,2 and 3 to the plaintiff company.
(22) As regards the claim of interest on the amount which has to be paid to the plaintiff company, namely, Rs. 1,06,0110-, the counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Ex. Public Witness 2/1 which is the Dealer's .Sales Agreement executed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. According to clause 14(d) thereof the amount is payable with interest at the rate 6f 1:5ΓΈ/, per mensem which comes to per annum
(23) Thus the handoffs are entitled to a de
(24) The tractor in question was supplied to defendant No. 4 on 10th January, 1986. Defendant No. 4 has paid the amount to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of the supply of tractor till the realisation of the price of the same.
(25) In this view of the matter, I pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. l,06,000.00 . The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the interest on the afore- said amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of supply of tractor to defendant NO- 4, i.e. 10.1986, and at the same rate from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. -
(26) No order as to costs.
(14) The manner in which such a resolution of the Board of Directors of Companies are to be proved, is clearly stated by Hardayal Hardy, J. in a judgment passed in Suit No. 469 of 1986 in M/s. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Observer Publications (P) Ltd. and others. In this judgment it has been stated that "the only way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of a company is that the minutes book in which the said resolution was recorded as having been passed should be produced in Court as that alone can form evidence of the fact under section 194 of the Act". Section 194 of the Companies Act reads as under :
"194.Minutes of meetings kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193 shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein".
(15) In view of the fact that the minutes book of the plaintiff has been produced before me, after seeing the same I am satisfied that resolution No. 5 was passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16th October, 1965. The plaintiff has thus proved the conferment of the powers of attorney to Shri Charanjit Singh with power to institute the suit. By virtue of provisions of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Principal Officer can sign and verify the plaint, it is also established that Charanjit Singh is a principal officer of the plaintiff company, who can as such officer, sign and verify the plaint in suit, he is also authorised to institute this suit by virtue of the power of attorney dated 28.1.1966.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suit No. 2043 of 1987
Decided On: 20.07.1990
Escorts Limited Vs. Sai Autos and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mahinder Narain, J.
Citation:(1991) 72 Com cases 483
(1) The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at H-2, Connaught Circus New Delhi, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 3,38,916.00 against four defendants.
(2) Defendant No. 1 is M/s. Sai Autos; defendant No. 2 is Mr. K. Neela Mohan Rao, partner and proprietor of M/s. Sai Autos. Defendant No 3 Sri Y. Venkateswar Rao is also partner and proprietor of M/s. Sai Autos and defendant No. 4 is Mr. Bollam Venkatramaiah. '
(3) M/S. Sai Auto are stated to have been dealers at Karim Nagar (Andhra Pradesh) for the sale of Ford Tractors made by the plaintiff company.
(4) It is the case of the plaintiff company that Mr. Charanjit Singh who has signed and verified the plaint, is the Principal Officer as also the Vice-President arid Secretary of the plaintiff company, and is authorised to sign verify the plaint and file the present suit and to prosecute the same on behalf of the plaintiff company in 'terms of the General Power of Attorney dated 28th January, 1966 granted to him by the plaintiff company, and registered in the books and records of the Sub Registrar New Delhi at No. 164 in Additional Book No. 4, Volume No 238 on pages to 101 on 31st January 1966.
(5) It is asserted in the plaint that a Ford Tractor, manufactured by the plaintiff, was purchased by defendant No. 4. The plaintiff says that this was sale on credit.
(6) The plaintiff has filed affidavit-evidence of its Officers, by which the said transaction of sale of the tractor, to the defendant No. 4, stands proved.
(7) It is stated in the affidavit that defendant No. 4 actually paid the money to the defendants I to 3 vide his cheque dated 31st July. 1986. It is stated that this cheque was collected by defendants 1 to 3 illegally and unauthorisedly. Defendants 1 to 3 instead of paying the money realised to the plaintiff company, kept the money themselves. It is also asserted in the affidavit that as the defendant No. 4' was bound to pay the money directly to the plaintiff he was liable to pay the price of the tractor purchased by him to the plaintiff company, which he had failed to do.
(8) During the course of arguments it was stressed that defendant No. 4 was liable for the price of the tractor, which amount he had wrongly paid to the defendants 1 to 3. In the plaint it is clearly asserted that the decree for payment of the suit amount may be passed against defendants 1 to 3, and only in the alternative the decree may be passed against defendant No. 4. During the course of arguments I had told the counsel for the plaintiff that it would be a travesty of justice if the defendant was to be made to pay again for the tractor which he had admitted paid for to defendant 1 to 3, by passing a decree against him. The counsel for the plaintiff, very fairly, gave up this claim made against defendant No. 4. The claim against defendant No. 4, in this suit, is therefore, dismissed.
(9) In as much as the power of attorney which is relied upon by the plaintiff company, executed on the 28th day of January, 1966 by Mrs. Raj's Nanda and Sodhi Kartar Singh and execution whereof was admitted before the Registrar of Assurance, it was asserted that power to institute suit stands proved.
(10) During the course of arguments, which were heard ex-parte, I pointed out to counsel that the presumption as to due execution of power of attorney was available only to those Power of Attorneys which were executed in accordance with the provisions of Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act and as Power of Attorney dated 28.1.66 was not in accordance with the provisions of that Section, no presumption can arise with respect thereto.
(11) Section 85 of the Evidence Act provides that "the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Consul or Vice-Consul or representative of the (Central Government) was so executed and authenticated".
(12) In as much as the power of attorney in question was not registered before the Notary Public or any Court Judge, Magistrate, Consul or Vice Consul or representative of the Central Government, no presumption can arise with respect to it as Registrar of Assurances is not one of the persons named in Section 85 of the Evidence Act. As presumption regarding its due execution of the power of attorney dt. 28,1.66 could not be raised, the benefits of Section 85 of the Evidence Act could not be availed vis-a-vis the said power of Attorney, Counsel for the plaintiff did not dispute, he could not, that Registrar of Assurances is not a "representative" of the Central Government. He is a person who discharges statutory functions under the Registration Act.
(13) In this view of the matter, as the power to institute the suit had to be proved, copy of Resolution No. 5 passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of Escorts Limited (plaintiff) held on 16th October, 1965 was placed on record, as this was not enough, the original minutes book containing Resolution No. 5 dated 16.10.1965 was brought to Court. I saw the original minutes book. It contains the aforesaid Resolution No. 5 dated 16.10.1965. This Resolution approves the draft Power of Attorney which was proposed to be granted. The manner of proving the said Resolution which has been adopted by the plaintiff is an affidavit of Mr. P.N. Arora, son of Mr. Lekh Raj, being affidavit dated 22nd March, 1990. In that affidavit, it is stated that the minutes of the Board of Directors have been written in the hands of Ms. Amarjit Kaur, who is the representative of the plaintiff company. The deponent says that he can identify the handwriting of the said Amarjit Kaur.
(14) The manner in which such a resolution of the Board of Directors of Companies are to be proved, is clearly stated by Hardayal Hardy, J. in a judgment passed in Suit No. 469 of 1986 in M/s. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Observer Publications (P) Ltd. and others. In this judgment it has been stated that "the only way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of a company is that the minutes book in which the said resolution was recorded as having been passed should be produced in Court as that alone can form evidence of the fact under section 194 of the Act". Section 194 of the Companies Act reads as under :
"194.Minutes of meetings kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193 shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein".
(15) In view of the fact that the minutes book of the plaintiff has been produced before me, after seeing the same I am satisfied that resolution No. 5 was passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16th October, 1965. The plaintiff has thus proved the conferment of the powers of attorney to Shri Charanjit Singh with power to institute the suit. By virtue of provisions of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Principal Officer can sign and verify the plaint, it is also established that Charanjit Singh is a principal officer of the plaintiff company, who can as such officer, sign and verify the plaint in suit, he is also authorised to institute this suit by virtue of the power of attorney dated 28.1.1966.
(16) The next question that arises is what amount is due from defendants No. to 3 to the plaintiff company. For this purpose, copies of accounts have been produced by the plaintiff company. Copies of the accounts produced by the plaintiff company deals with the transaction between the plaintiff defendants No. to 3. In none of the affidavits filed by the plaintiff, have these accounts been proved in accordance with the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, which sets out the manner in which any person can be charged with liability on accounts, and how the liability is to be proved.
(17) Section 34 of the Evidence Act reads as under:.
"ENTRIES in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but each statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability".
(18) In view of the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act, entries in the books of account are not alone sufficient evidence to charge any person With liability. Nor can copies of entries in the books of account be sufficient to charge any person with liability. The manner in which entries in the books df account are to be proved to charge any person with liability, has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0031/1966 : [1967]1SCR898a (Chandradhar Goswami & others v. Gauhati Bank Ltd.), the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the entries in the books of account are not primary evidence of indebted- ness. A plaintiff has to lead evidence in the shape of vouchers, bills etc. to prove the entries in the books of account.
(19) In this view of the matter, neither the copy of the ledger account, nor the ledgers themselves, in respect of account of defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 is enough evidence to charge them with liability, and no decree can be passed against the defendants on the basis thereof.
(20) Learned counsel for the plaintiff then referred to the affidavit which had been filed in which it has been stated that defendants No. I to 3 sent the cheques for Rs. 1,06,000.00 being the cheque dated 31st July, 1966 for the purpose of liquidating the amount due, which has been received from defendant No. 4 by defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, but had not been paid to the plaintiff. The said cheque was dishonoured when presented, and has been filed along with the documents, and has been proved by the affidavit of Mr. J.L. Chawla dated 22nd March, 1990. The dishonoured cheque is on record, and is marked as Ex. P. 2/6. The memo of dishonour is Ex. P. 2/5. The counsel for the plaintiff states that after this cheque was dishonoured, further, a reference was made to defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 about the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 1,06,000.00 . In lieu of the dishonoured cheque of Rs. I -06,000.00 , two cheques of Rs. 50.000.00 and the other for Rs. 36.000.00 dated 30th August, 1986 and 30th September, 1986 respectively, were sent by defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. The said cheques are marked as Ex. Public Witness 2/7 and Ex. Public Witness 2/8 These two cheques also, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured and the memo of dishonour is marked as Ex. Public Witness 2/9.
(21) The aforesaid cheques Ex. Public Witness 2/6, Ex. Public Witness 2/7 and Ex. Public Witness 2/8 go 'to show that defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 owed a sum of Rs. l,06,000.00 to the plaintiff company, and that they purported to pay the same by giving a cheque of Rs. l,06,000.00 and thereafter by giving two cheques ; one of Rs. 50,000.00 and the other for Rs. 56,fl00.00 . The dishonour of the said cheques indicate that the said amount which was due to the plaintiff remained unpaid and the plaintiff is entitled to the payment of Rs. 1,06,000 in lieu of the price of the tractor which was supplied to defendant No. 4, who paid its price to defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, but defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 failed to give the same to the plaintiff who was actually entitled to receive the said price. The said cheques are an admission and proof of indebtedness of defendants No. 1,2 and 3 to the plaintiff company.
(22) As regards the claim of interest on the amount which has to be paid to the plaintiff company, namely, Rs. 1,06,0110-, the counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Ex. Public Witness 2/1 which is the Dealer's .Sales Agreement executed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. According to clause 14(d) thereof the amount is payable with interest at the rate 6f 1:5ΓΈ/, per mensem which comes to per annum
(23) Thus the handoffs are entitled to a de
(24) The tractor in question was supplied to defendant No. 4 on 10th January, 1986. Defendant No. 4 has paid the amount to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of the supply of tractor till the realisation of the price of the same.
(25) In this view of the matter, I pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. l,06,000.00 . The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the interest on the afore- said amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of supply of tractor to defendant NO- 4, i.e. 10.1986, and at the same rate from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. -
(26) No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment