Skip to content


Kuber Nath and ors. Vs. Mahali Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All587
AppellantKuber Nath and ors.
RespondentMahali Ram and anr.
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1872 (indian contract act), sections 23 and 27 - agreement between several firms to fix rates for ginning and baling cotton and to share profits--agreement neither in restraint of trade nor against public policy. - .....baling were to be divided equally, while those for ginning were to be divided in proportion to the ginning capacity of the various factories. a dispute as to the ginning capacity of the factories arose and the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for their share of the profits according to the ginning capacity of their mills. the court of first instance decreed the claim. on appeal, the decree was slightly modified by the lower appellate court as to the amount to which the plaintiffs were entitled. in second appeal to this court the only point pressed before us is that the agreement relied on was contrary to public policy and void in law. there are two cases decided by the bombay high court-haribhai maneklal v. sharafali isabji (1897) i.l.r. 22 bom. 861 and frazer and co. v. the bombay.....
Judgment:

Karamat Hussain and Tudball, JJ.

1. The managers of five ginning firms came to an agreement, where by they fixed the rates to be charged for ginning and baling cotton, thus forming a combination, and agreed that for a certain definite period the profits of ginning would be 7 annas 6 pies and of baling 1 anna 6 pies per maund. They further agreed that the profits were to be divided, and that those for baling were to be divided equally, while those for ginning were to be divided in proportion to the ginning capacity of the various factories. A dispute as to the ginning capacity of the factories arose and the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for their share of the profits according to the ginning capacity of their mills. The court of first instance decreed the claim. On appeal, the decree was slightly modified by the lower appellate court as to the amount to which the plaintiffs were entitled. In second appeal to this Court the only point pressed before us is that the agreement relied on was contrary to public policy and void in law. There are two cases decided by the Bombay High Court-Haribhai Maneklal v. Sharafali Isabji (1897) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 861 and Frazer and Co. v. The Bombay Ice Manufacturing Company (1904) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 107. -- which show that such a contract is neither in restraint of trade nor opposed to public policy. We agree with these rulings. The appeal, there-fore, fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //