Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The doctrine of frustration does not apply to a contract that is not subject to the availability of the goods [judgement_subject]. The Contract Act referred includes Section 73 and Section 56 [judgement_act_referred]. The case involves a contract to supply gunny bags where the market rate at the time of breach was the measure of damages [judgement_act_referred]. The appellants were selling agents for Katihar Jute Mills and agreed to supply 14,500 gunny bags in two installments during November and December 1951 (!) . Due to the closure of the Mills (due to a labor strike), the appellants failed to supply the bags (!) (!) . The respondent purchased the bags from another company (Messrs. Katruka and Company) at a higher rate (Rs. 263 per hundred bags) and claimed damages for the difference (!) (!) . The appellants argued that the doctrine of frustration applied because the Mills were closed (!) . The Court rejected the plea of frustration, holding that the contract did not contain a condition

Firm Rampratap Mahadeo Prasad vs Sasansa Sugar Works Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1962 Supreme(Pat) 127

KANHAIYA SINGH, RAMRATNA SINGH
Firm Rampratap Mahadeo Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Sasansa Sugar Works Ltd. – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The doctrine of frustration does not apply to a contract that is not subject to the availability of the goods [judgement_subject].
The Contract Act referred includes Section 73 and Section 56 [judgement_act_referred].
The case involves a contract to supply gunny bags where the market rate at the time of breach was the measure of damages [judgement_act_referred].
The appellants were selling agents for Katihar Jute Mills and agreed to supply 14,500 gunny bags in two installments during November and December 1951 (!) .
Due to the closure of the Mills (due to a labor strike), the appellants failed to supply the bags (!) (!) .
The respondent purchased the bags from another company (Messrs. Katruka and Company) at a higher rate (Rs. 263 per hundred bags) and claimed damages for the difference (!) (!) .
The appellants argued that the doctrine of frustration applied because the Mills were closed (!) .
The Court rejected the plea of frustration, holding that the contract did not contain a condition

Judgment

Ramratna Singh, J.

1. This appeal under the Letters Patent is by the defendants first party against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, who confirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Chapra in a suit for damages for breach of a contract. Appellants 2 and 3, who have got a firm in the name and style of Rampratap Mahadeo Prasad (defendant-appellant No. 1), were Selling agents during the relevant period of gunny bags manufactured by Messrs. Katihar Jute Mills Ltd., Katihar (defendant second party). On the 30th November, 1950, there was a contract between the defendant-appellants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff respondent for the supply of 40,000 gunny bags. F.O.R. Katihar, at the rate of Rs. 210.00 per hundred bags through their manager, defendant-appellant No. 4. Due to the failure on the part of the appellants to execute this contract, there was some difference between the parties; but ultimately a fresh agreement (Ext. 1) was arrived at on the 9th August, 1951, the relevant term whereof read thus :

"5. That we shall supply to you the balance quantity of 14500A Twill gunny bags of the old Katihar Jute Mills 44" x 261/2" x 2.5/8 lbs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1962 Supreme(Pat) 127

KANHAIYA SINGH, RAMRATNA SINGHFirm Rampratap Mahadeo Prasad – AppellantVersusSasansa Sugar Works Ltd. – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

KANHAIYA SINGH, RAMRATNA SINGH
Firm Rampratap Mahadeo Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Sasansa Sugar Works Ltd. – Respondent