1. The Plaintiffs are the canalizing agents of the Government of India for import and supply of foreign cotton to several Indian Textile Mills. The Defendants carry on business of a textile mill.

2. Pursuant to the circular issued by the Plaintiffs in respect of availability of cotton from various countries which would be shipped to India, the Defendant s registered their offer to purchase cotton from Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Brazil. The Plaintiffs issued their permission /quot a letter for specified bales of cotton to the Defendants. The parties entered into a contract bearing No.G-444 in respect of the shipment import and supply of the cotton from the aforesaid 4 countries specified therein. The parties similarly entered into another contract in respect of further offer of the Defendants for certain cotton from Turkey, of which specified bales were permitted under the Plaintiffs Contract No.G- 511. Both the contracts are identical. They are marked Exhibits D and H in evidence. The rights and obligations of the parties under those two written contracts would have to be considered upon interpretation of the contracts admittedly executed by the parties.

3. The goods under the said contract arrived at the Port of Cochin except in respect of 1 shipment which arrived at the Port of Mumbai instead. The Defendants were informed by the Plaintiffs to retire their documents and clear the consignment. The arrival of the shipment is admitted by the Defendants. The goods were not cleared.

4. It is contended by the Plaintiffs that despite correspondence through letters and telegrams in that behalf, the Defendants failed to clear the goods, due to which the Plaintiffs incurred demur rage charges and thereafter were constrained to themselves to clear the goods and store the goods until they were sold to another party. The Plaintiffs accordingly incurred carrying charges in respect of the storage. The Plaintiffs sold the goods at the price which could be obtained upon a private treaty after a tender in that behalf as the sale by auction did not yield any offer.

5. The Defendants contend that 2 of the shipments arrived late and in view of delay in the shipments they incurred a loss in their business and were not bound to take delivery of any of the shipments.

6. Each party has accordingly alleged breach of the contract by the other. Whereas the Defendant s have not sued the Plaintiffs on the breach, if any, committed by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have sued the Defendant s for damages for the loss suffered by the Plaintiffs upon a breach by failure to take delivery of the consignment s that arrived in respect of the contract material.

7. Basedupon the respective pleadings of the parties which sets out essentially the breaches of one another and the right to claim damages, if any, by the Plaintiffs Justice A.B.Palkar, as he then was, framed the following issues on 14.2000 which are answered as follows:-

Issues

(1)Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendant s committed breach of the Contract by not taking delivery of the cotton under the two contracts. .. .. Yes

(2)Whether the Defendant s prove that the Plaintiffs committed breach of the contract by causing delay in delivery of the suit cotton. And if so, whether the Defendant s are entitled to

cancel the contract and not to take delivery of the suit cotton. .. .. No

(3)Whether the Defendants prove that the Plaintiffs have not taken steps to mitigate the loss and thereby the Defendants stood discharged of any loss caused to the Plaintiffs. .. .. .. .. Partly Yes. Partly No (as per reasons) .

.(4) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Plaintiffs suffered loss of Rs.25,62,471.41 or for any other amount and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to interest thereon as claimed in the Suit. .. .. .. Yes – as per reasons .

.(5) What reliefs ? .. .. As per final order .

8. The parties have essentially led evidence of one of their respective officers. Though the Plaintiffs have led e