SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(SC) 14

LORD DUNEDIN, LORD PHILLIMORE, AMEER ALI
MUHAMMAD HABID ULLAH – Appellant
Versus
BIRD AND COMPANY – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant :Douglas Grant. Solicitors for respondents: Orr, Dignam & Co.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 126 of 1919) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (June 16, 1917) varying a decree of the Court of Small Causes, exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge of Azra.

In March, 1913, the appellant entered into a written agreement to sell to the respondents 4000 sal railway sleepers at Rs. 1, a. 15, per cubic foot, to be delivered by May 31, 1913 ; as a term of the contract the appellant deposited Rs. 5000 with the respondents and agreed to a penalty of 8 annas per cubic foot for sleepers not delivered by May 31, 1913. The respondents had previously contracted to supply sleepers to the Bengal-Nagpur Railway. By a letter of May 14, 1913, the appellant informed the respondents that 2000 sleepers were ready for inspection, and of these 1746 were passed by the railway company on June 28, 1913, and were accepted by the respondents. No

Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 175 ( 1920- 1921) Muhammad Habid Ullah V. Bird and C ompany

62

further sleepers were delivered; in December, 1913, the respondents having threatened to exact the penalties, the appellant refused to make any further deliveries, and commenced the present suit.

The appellant by his plaint alleged that the re






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top