( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant, who filed the suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,51,161/- with subsequent interest and costs. Plaintiff is a company established for purpose of purchasing tobacco from the growers and selling the same to buyers. With a view to disposing of the stocks of tobacco that was purchased by the plaintiff from the ryots during the year 1985, plaintiff-company has called for tenders from the tradesmen for sale of BFC High grade 1984 tobacco of 6. 27 lakh Kgs. and the first defendant

( 2 ) WHICH is a registered firm became the highest bidder on 25-2-1985 and purchased the same at the rate of Rs. 10-10 Ps. per Kg. and in pursuance of the acceptance of the first defendant s tender, a stamped agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 26-2-1985. According to the terms of the agreement, defendants have to lift the entire stock on or before 15-4-1985 by paying the amount in advance. Defendants have lifted only 3. 52 lakh Kgs. of tobacco before the due date and asked for extension of time pleading inability to lift the balance stock till the end of may, 1985 by their letter dated 17-4-1985. The plaintiff, however, extended the period up to 25-5-1985. Accordingly, an agreement dated 4-5-1985 was also entered into incorporating a condition that defendants should pay interest at 18 per cent per annum on the entire stock that was left by them and also on the stock that may be lifted from 16-4-1985 to 25-5-1985, and in case defendants fail to lift the stock after paying the balance amount by 25-5-1985, plaintiff-Company will be at liberty to sell the unlifted stock in public auction after giving 10 days notice, and in case the amount so fetched falls short of the value as fixed in the agreement dated 26-2-1985, plaintiff-Company will be entitled to recover the deficiency and costs incurred in that regard from the defendants. Even then, defendants have failed to lift the stock and the plaintiff-Company issued notices dated 12-6-1985, 17-7-1985, 25-9-1985 for which defendants sent replies dated 3-7-1985, 24-8-1985 and 24-10-1985 respectively, whereunder they have merely repeated their old song for further extention of time. Plaintiff-Company lost faith in defendants and finally got issued a lawyer s noticevdated 16-12-1985 to the defendants stipulating 10 days time from the date of receipt of the notice to lift the stock and for payment, and in default, it will be compelled to sell the stock under tender-cum-open- auction and the defendants will be responsible for the deficiency if any that may arise in that connection. Although the said notice was acknowledged by defendants, no reply was given. Plaintiff-Company is always ready and willing to comply with the terms of those agreements. Plaintiff-Company waited for more than reasonable time, and having fully satisfied that defendants are not able to comply with the terms of the contract, conducted auction on 19-7-1985 and the balance of stock was sold for a sum of rs. 19,05,986-80 Ps in lieu of Rs. 27,18,850/- which was the agreed amount, resulting in a loss of Rs. 8,05,862-20 Ps. which the defendants are squarely liable to pay, together with interest at 18 per cent per annum from 16-4-1985 to 25-5-1985 as agreed upon after deducting the amount paid by the defendants to the plaintiff-Company and also taking into account the earnest money deposit of the defendants in a sum of Rs. 1-00 lakh, lying with the plaintiff, and as the plaintiff has to recover a sum of Rs. 4,51,165/- and accordingly, notice dated 16-11-1986 was issued through its lawyer, and the defendants sent a contentious reply dated 12-1-1987. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) THIRD defendant filed written statement which was adopted by all the other defendants. According to them stipulation of time in the agreement is not the essence of contract; various letters and other documents executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff were all obtained by undue influenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document