The Appellant was successfully sued in a District Court by
the Respondent whose claim was based on an agency relationship, a relationship
the Appellant disputed. The agency was for purchasing cotton at various cotton
purchasing posts. In that suit the Appellant had also filed a counterclaim,
stating that the Respondent was his employee; that he had given him cash to
purchase cotton but the Respondent supplied an amount which was less and then
disappeared. He was claiming an equivalent of the short landed cotton. The
District Court refused the counter claim noting that if the Appellant had such
a claim, he should have reported the matter to the police. The Appellant
appealed contending, inter alia, that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to enforce or to adjudicate upon a contract which is prohibited by
law.