TMI Blog1946 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Trial Judge (Kania J.), who had seen and heard the witnesses, felt constrained to take a different view of the facts from that which he had taken, and their Lordships are clearly of opinion that they were right in doing so. 2. The substantial question can be shortly stated. The joint Hindu family, of which the appellant is the Karta, carried on certain family businesses, including an agency firm in the name of Jhajharia Dhandhania and Company, which had until February 1939, acted as selling agents for the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company, Limited, which will be called the Company, and in the month of June they owned 163 shares of Bs. 1000 in this Company which stood as to 56 in the name of the appellant, as to 106 in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramkisondas Dalmia appeared upon the scene. He was a man of wealth and position, thought to be favourably disposed to the appellant, and it was hoped that by his intervention the family fortunes might be retrieved. He had shortly before through a nominee acquired the managing agency of some sugar mills in which the appellant's family were interested. 8. It is at this point that the question of fact arises. The 163 shares of the Company owned by the appellant's family were in June 1939, disposed of (a neutral word will in the first place be used) by the Banks to respondent 1. The appellant alleges that they were mortgaged to respondent 1 and sub-mortgaged by him to respondent 2. The respondents other than respondent 1 claim that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir Lordships think it unnecessary to repeat the careful analysis of the transaction by the Banks which appears in the judgment of the appeal Court. From the books of the Banks, from the formal documents and above all from the correspondence between the Banks and the appellant one thing emerges clear beyond all doubt, viz., that the Banks acted on the footing that they were selling the shares to respondent 1 and crediting the appellant with the net proceeds of sale. It appears to their Lordships that the learned trial Judge in his careful and elaborate judgment did not give sufficient weight to this aspect of the case. 11. Nor has the appellant offered any satisfactory explanation of another matter which appears to be of decisive importa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearance of greater credibility by alleging that, while all the 163 shares were to be mortgaged and sub-mortgaged as stated, yet in regard to 100 of them, if respondent 3 succeeded in getting the Company to pay a sum of ₹ 3,00,000 in satisfaction of the appellant's claim for the unlawful determination of the selling agency, then respondent 8 should become the purchaser of such shares at ₹ 2000 per share. This was put forward as the reason why respondent 3 was induced to entertain a proposal which otherwise appears to have offered him no advantage. To their Lordships as to the learned Judges of the Appeal Court this amended story is wholly unacceptable, and without discussing it in further detail they will be content to adopt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
