Skip to content


Bhagwan DIn Vs. Mahmud Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in45Ind.Cas.502
AppellantBhagwan Din
RespondentMahmud Ali
Excerpt:
.....where an artificer, workman or labourer has received money from a roaster or employer and has wifully and without lawful or reasonable excuse neglaoted or refused to perform or get performed any work which he has contracted to perform or get performed......by an artificer, workman or labourer, and the person by whom the money was advanced was not his master or employer. the present case was that of an ordinary contract by a person who dealt in stones to supply certain stones to another person. the act has, therefore, no application in a case of this kind and the learned magistrate who tried the case was, in my opinion, wrong in holding the act to be applicable. i accept the recommendation of the learned district magistrate and set aside the order of the magistrate of the first class, dated 26th november 1917. any sum which may have been paid in pursuance of the said order should be refunded.
Judgment:

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. Bhagwan Din is alleged to have taken an advance of Rs. 20 from Mahmud Ali, upon an agreement to supply him with certain stones from time to time according to the terms of a contract entered into by him with Mabtand Ali. He having failed to supply the stones, an application was made to a Magistrate under Act XIII of 1859 and the Magistrate made an order against Bhagwan Din. The learned District Magistrate is of opinion that the Act did not apply to a case like the present and has accordingly referred it to this Court with the recommendation that the order of the Magistrate be set aside. I agwree with the view taken by the learned District Magistrate. The Act, as the preamble shows, is an Act for the granting of relief for fraudulent breach of contract on the part of artificers, work-man and labourers who have received money in advance on account of work which they have contracted to perform. Section 1 of the Act clearly shows that it applies to cases where an artificer, workman or labourer has received money from a roaster or employer and has wifully and without lawful or reasonable excuse neglaoted or refused to perform or get performed any work which he has contracted to perform or get performed. In the present case the contract was not a contract by an artificer, workman or labourer. The money was not advanced on account of work to be performed by an artificer, workman or labourer, and the person by whom the money was advanced was not his master or employer. The present case was that of an ordinary contract by a person who dealt in stones to supply certain stones to another person. The Act has, therefore, no application in a case of this kind and the learned Magistrate who tried the case was, in my opinion, wrong in holding the Act to be applicable. I accept the recommendation of the learned District Magistrate and set aside the order of the Magistrate of the First Class, dated 26th November 1917. Any sum which may have been paid in pursuance of the said order should be refunded.


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