Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1991 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1991 (2) TMI 399 - SC - Companies LawWhether the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of ₹ 75,000 which according to him he had actually advanced and the respondents had received for the purpose of prosecuting their litigation? Whether the advance in question was opposed to public policy Held that:- The agreement itself stipulated that on the successful establishment of the claim, the Nawab would not only return the said advance but would also pay to the plaintiff consideration for the said advance. That consideration was agreed to be at the rate of one anna in a rupee. It is, therefore, apparent on the face of the record that the advance and the share in the estate, were a part of the same contractone as a consideration for the other. The two stand together and none can stand without the other. Hence, I am not impressed by the contention advanced by Shri Shah for the appellant that the amount of ₹ 75,000 which was advanced by the appellant can be separated from the other agreement or could be treated differently. Thus in agreement with the High Court that the agreement has to be treated as a whole and the two parts, viz., the advance and the consideration for the same cannot be separated from each other. The parties had entered into the agreement in question with the avowed purpose that the plaintiff would use his then prevailing influence with the worthies in the Government to secure the gains for the Nawab. The Court On this evidence came to the conclusion that the agreement was nothing but one obviously made to lend services as a "go-between" or a "carrier" for commission. This being so, it was against public interest and detrimental to the health of body politic. A bargain whereby one party is to assist another in recovering property and is to share in the proceeds of the action and such assistance is by using the influence with the administration, irrespective of the fact that the persons intended to be influenced are not amenable to such influence is against protection and promotion of public welfare. It is opposed to public policy. In this view, we would hold that the plaintiff cannot enforce the agreement to recover the amount from the respondents. Appeal dismissed.
|