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

1969 Supreme(Pat) 31

PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and M.P.Varma JJ.
Matanhella Brothers
Versus
Shri Mahabir Industries Pvt.Ltd.
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 181 of 1965 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 11, 1969

The measure of damages for breach of contract of sale of goods is the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of the breach.

Headnote:

SALE OF GOODS ACT - SECTION 39 - DELIVERY OF GOODS - JURISDICTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT - DAMAGES - MARKET RATE - TIME OF BREACH.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff sued defendants for damages for breach of contract of sale of 180 bags of pure Tora. The defendants purchased the Tora but did not dispatch it. The plaintiff claimed damages based on the difference between the contract price and the market price prevailing in June 1961.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the contract was completed at Gorakhpur when the defendants accepted the plaintiff's offer by telegram on 28th March 1961. The delivery at the request of the buyer to the common carrier was tantamount to delivery to the buyer at Gorakhpur. The breach of contract occurred in April 1961 when the defendants insisted on dispatching the goods as per sample sent by them, and not pure Tora, as they had intimated to have purchased for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim for damages based on the difference between the contract price and the market price prevailing in June 1961 was unsustainable as there was no claim or evidence in regard to the prevailing market rate in or about the middle of April 1961.

Issues: 1. Whether the Araria Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Whether there was a concluded contract between the parties. 3. Whether the contents of 180 bags of Tora were 405 maunds. 4. Whether the breach, if any, had occurred long before June 1961, and, there being neither any pleading nor any proof of the prevailing market rate of Tora at or about the date of the breach, the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The contract was completed at Gorakhpur when the defendants accepted the plaintiff's offer by telegram on 28th March 1961. The delivery at the request of the buyer to the common carrier was tantamount to delivery to the buyer at Gorakhpur. 2. There was a concluded contract between the parties for the purchase of pure Tora at Rs. 28.00 per maund. 3. The contents of 180 bags of Tora were 405 maunds. 4. The breach of contract occurred in April 1961 when the defendants insisted on dispatching the goods as per sample sent by them, and not pure Tora, as they had intimated to have purchased for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim for damages based on the difference between the contract price and the market price prevailing in June 1961 was unsustainable as there was no claim or evidence in regard to the prevailing market rate in or about the middle of April 1961.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.

Judgment

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. This second appeal came up before us for hearing on a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The defendants are the appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was for recovery of Rs. 1,800 on account of damages for breach of a contract of sale of 180 bags of pure Tora. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff is a private limited company carrying on business at Forbes-ganj in the district of Purnea. Defendants 2 and 3 are said to carry on business in the town of Gorakhpur in the name and style of defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiffs case, the defendants, by their telegram dated the 22nd March. 1961, offered to the plaintiff at Forbesganj to purchase for it Pai Tora at the rate of Rs. 26.50 paise per maund and linseed at Rs. 25.00 per maund, and sought its approval and acceptance of the offer. The plaintiff accepted the offer made by the defendants and communicated the same to them by its letter dated the 23rd March, 1961, whereby the defendants were directed to purchase for the plaintiff one wagon of pure Tora at Rs. 28.00 per maund and to despatch the same to Forbesganj. The defendants purchased 180 bags of Pure Tora at Rs. 28.00 per maund and informed the plaintiff by their telegram dated the 28th March, 1961. The goods, however, were not despatched after the purchase, even up to the 10th April, 1961. The plaintiff, by its letter dated the 11th April, 1961, wrote to the defendants to enquire from them as to why the commodity could not be despatched, and requested them to despatch 180 bags to Forbesganj without any further delay. Even then, the defendants did not despatch.

On the 2nd May, 1961, the plaintiff wrote again complaining about the delay in the despatch but the goods were not despatched. The market of Tora went on rising and it went up to Rs. 32.50 paise per maund in the Forbesganj market. It is not stated in any part of the plaint as to at what point of time was this market rate. According to the plaintiffs case. 180 bags of Tora would be equal to 405 maunds; as each bag contains 2 maunds 10 seers. The difference between the contract price and the market price thus came to Rs. 1,822.50 at the rate of Rs. 4.50 paise per maund. Giving a remission of Rs. 22.50 paise, the total claim in the suit was Rs. 1800.00.

3. The defence set up by the appellants was that, as per instructions of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 had purchased the Tora and sent a sample of the purchased goods to it; but the plaintiff company informed that the Tora contained 50% of Pai and expressed its inability to accept the goods. Thus, the transaction failed. The plaintiff insisted on despatch of the Tora. The defendants asked the plaintiff to send its men to take delivery of the goods which had been purchased by them for the plaintiff as per sample. The plaintiff never sent any man to take delivery. The breach of the contract, therefore, was on the part of the plaintiff company, and not on the part of the defendants. The defendants also contended and took the plea that the Court at Araria had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the contract was completed at Gorakh-pur, the delivery was to be made at Gorakhpur, and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Araria Court.

4. Both the Courts below have found that, since the goods were to be delivered at Forbesganj, the Araria Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. They have further found that there was a concluded contract between the parties and the contract was for purchase of pure Tora at Rs. 28.00 per maund, the defendants had committed breach of the contract, and the plaintiff was entitled to the damages claimed, as the prevalent market rate of Tora in June, 1961 was Rs. 32.50 paise per maund.

5. Several points have been urged In support of the appeal by learned counsel for the appellants. I shall state them and briefly indicate that there is no substance in any of the point
















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 Back to top