SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT AND G.K. MITTER, JJ
P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Ltd. and another (In both the appeals), Appellants
Versus
Express Newspapers Ltd. Bombay (In both the Appeals). Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of l965 D/- 10-11-1967
Advocates appeared
Mr S. V. Gupte, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Naunit Lal and R Thiagarajan, Advocate, with him), for Appellants (In both the Appeals); Mr. N. C. Chatterjee Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Advocate for Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer Advocate, with him), for Respondent (In both the Appeals).
– where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods no property in the goods transferred to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained. It is a condition precedent to the passing of the property under a contract of sale that the goods are ascertained. The condition is not fulfilled, as held in P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar Co.Ltd v. Express Newspaper Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 741, where there is a contract of a portion of a specific larger stock. Till the portion identified and appropriated to the contract no property passes to the buyer.
– the seller can claim as damages the difference between the contract price and the amount realized on resale of the goods where he has the right of re–sale under Section 54(2) of the Act. The statutory power of resale under Section 54(2) arises if the property in the goods has passed to the buyer subject to the lien of the unpaid seller. Where the property in the goods has not passed to the buyer, the seller has no right of resale under Section 54(2). Section 18 provides that where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods no property in the goods is transferred to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained. It is a condition precedent to the passing of property under a contract of sale that the goods are ascertained. The condition is not fulfilled where there is a contract for sale for a portion of a specified larger stock. Till the portion is identified and appropriated to the contract no property passes to the buyer. In the case of P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Ltd. v. Express Newspapers Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 741, it was held that on the date of resale, property in the goods had not passed to the buyer. Consequently, the respondent had no right to resale the goods under Section 54(2). Hence the claim to recover the deficiency was not tenable.
Judgement
BACHAWAT, J. : -The dispute arises out of a contract between the appellants and the respondent entered into on November 13, 1951. The terms of this contract were recorded in writing in the form of a letter written by the respondent to appellant No. 1 and set out below
"Messrs. P. S. N. S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Company Ltd.
260, Angappa Naicken Street, Madras.
Dear Sirs,
We confirm having purchased from you and the Madras Paper Marketing Company, Madras, 500 tons of Russian Newsprint as per the following description:-
About 70 per cent in reels of 34 inches width.
About 15 per cent in reels of 22 inches width.
About 15 per cent in reels of 36 inches width.
at annas 9 per lb. Ex-Wharf Bombay duty, etc., paid. The buyers are to take delivery within four days of the offer of delivery. Any wharfage, etc., up to the fourth day of the offer of delivery will be on seller s account and thereafter on buyer s account.
We have also sold you about 415 tons of Russian newsprint in sheets in size of about 30"x42 (760mm x1083 mm) ex-godown, Madras at Re. 0-9-6 per lb.
We will keep the stock of sheets in our godown on your account free of rent.
We shall advance you moneys against this newsprint at annas 8 per lb. This advance will carry interest at 5 per cent per annum. We will also charge you the exact amount of insurance which we pay to our Insurance Company against the goods.
We shall pay Rs. 5,60,000 to your Bankers in Bombay and take delivery of the 500 tons of newsprint from the harbour in Bombay. Accounts will be made on the basis of the above arrangement and whatever one party is Liable to pay to the other will be adjusted subsequently.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
For Express Newspapers Limited Director."
The document shows that the respondent agreed to buy from the appellants 500 tons of Russian newsprint in reels at 9 annas per lb., ex-wharf, Bombay and to take delivery of the goods on payment of Rs. 5,60.000/-. At the same time, the appellants agreed to buy from the respondent 415 tons of Russian newsprint in sheets then lying in a godown in Madras at 9 annas 6 pies per lb. upon the term that the appellants would pay the insurance charges and also interest at 5 per cent per annum on an amount equivalent to the price of the goods calculated at 8 annas per lb. The understanding was that the appellants would within a reasonable time take delivery of the goods bought by them in instalments, and the accounts would be finally adjusted on the completion of the deliveries. It may be mentioned that appellant No. 2 carried on business under the name and style of Madras Paper Marketing Company.
2. On November 26, 1951, the parties orally agreed that instead of 500 tons the respondent would buy 300 tons of newsprint in reels and that instead of 415 tons the appellants would buy 300 tons of newsprint in sheets and the terms of the contract dated November 13, 1951 would stand varied accordingly.
3. On December 5, 1951, the respondent took delivery of 300 tons of newsprint in reels on payment of Rs. 3,18,706-9-10 and a sum of Rs. 57,816-13-2 remained due to the appellants on account of the price of these goods. From November 29, 1951 up to February 27, 1952, the appellants took delivery of 122324 Lbs. of newsprint in sheets on payment of Rs. 63,032-15-9 to the respondent. Subsequently, the appellants refused to take delivery of the balance 547501 Lbs. of newsprint in sheets. Counsel for the parties agreed before us that March 29, 1952 was the date when the appellants repudiated the contract. On April 21, 1952 after giving notice to the appellants the respondent resold the balance goods to one G. R. Lala at 6 1/2 annas per lb.
4. On April 18, 1952, the appellants filed in the High Court of Madras C. S. No. 175 of 1952 claiming from the respondent Rs. 57,816-13-2 on account of the balance price of 300 tons of newsprint in reels and interest thereon. The respondent admitted the claim for the balance price. On July 30, 1952, the respondent filed in the H
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.