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

1987 Supreme(Cal) 268

High Court Of Calcutta
Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, L. M. Ghosh
PEECO HYDRAULIC PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
EAST ANGLIA PLASTICS (INDIA) LTD. - Respondent
Decree 156  Of  1978
Decided On : 07/29/1987

Advocates Appeared:
BINAYAK GHOSHAL, Nirmal Kumar Ghosal, Rajgiri Ram, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

A suit for recovery of the purchase price advanced for the purchase of goods is maintainable as a suit for damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, where the seller fails to deliver the goods within the stipulated time.

Headnote:

SALE OF GOODS - CONTRACT FOR SALE OF FUTURE GOODS - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY SELLER - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF PURCHASE PRICE ADVANCED - MAINTAINABILITY - DAMAGES - INTEREST.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of money advanced for the purchase of a Press. The appellant failed to deliver the Press within the stipulated time. The respondent sent a letter on 28.9.73 stating that they did not require the Press anymore as their license had been canceled. The appellant replied on 22.10.73 explaining the reason for the delay and alleging that the respondent's representative had asked them to postpone the final assembling work. The respondent denied this and requested a refund of the advance payment. The appellant claimed a set-off for the cost of manufacturing the components.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that time was of the essence of the contract and that the appellant's failure to deliver the Press within the stipulated time amounted to a breach of contract. The Court also held that the suit for recovery of the purchase price advanced was maintainable as a suit for damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court further held that the appellant was not entitled to a set-off for the cost of manufacturing the components as the contract had been terminated by the respondent due to the appellant's breach.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit for recovery of the purchase price advanced was maintainable? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a set-off for the cost of manufacturing the components?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the suit for recovery of the purchase price advanced was maintainable as a suit for damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court reasoned that the appellant's failure to deliver the Press within the stipulated time amounted to a breach of contract and that the respondent was entitled to recover damages for the breach. 2. The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to a set-off for the cost of manufacturing the components as the contract had been terminated by the respondent due to the appellant's breach. The Court reasoned that the appellant could not claim damages against the respondent after failing to deliver the goods in time.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-objection filed by the respondent. The Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 18,675 including interest upto the date of institution of the suit. The respondent was also entitled to recover interest on the principal sum of Rs. 18,000 from the date of institution of the suit till payment.

SANKARI PRASAD DAS GHOSH, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant in this appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of money advanced for purchase of one price of Peeco Branch Oil Hydraulic 4 Piller Type Multi-Daylight Hot-plate Press from the appellant.

( 2 ) ON 12. 6. 71, the appellant made an offer to the plaintiff for sale of the Press on certain terms and conditions. The time for delivery was stated as 7 to 8 months from the date of receipt of Order. According to this offer, 30% of the value of the Press to the tune of Rs. 60,000 was to be paid as advance alongwith the Order and the balance was to be paid after satisfactory test-run at the Works of the appellant but before effecting delivery. The offer was accepted by the respondent on 9. 7. 71, when formal Order No. 101 dated 9. 7. 71 was placed for supply of the Press as per the description and specification given in that order. The specification was changed regarding the size of the Plate in that Order. The time of delivery was also mentioned to be six months from the date of the Order. A cheque for Rs. 18,000 was enclosed along with that Order towards 30% advance. The terms of payment, as per that Order, were the payment of 60% after satisfactory test run at the Works of the appellant and 10% after one month's successful performance of the Press in the Works of the respondent. The appellant failed to deliver the machine within the stipulated time. On 14. 10. 72, the appellant wrote to the plaintiff explaining the delay in delivering the machine. The delay was stated to be due to the difficulties in obtaining Cast Iron Platens suitable for withstanding the steam pressure. By that letter the appellant requested the respondent to depute one of their representatives to inspect the progress of the Press, if desired, after 25. 10. 72 on prior intimation. The respondent sent a reply on 17. 11. 72 to the effect that the technical representative will be inspecting the Press on completion of the final assembling. The appellant was requested by that letter dated 17. 11. 72 to send a technical representative to the respondent's Works for demonstration after delivery of the Press to the respondent. There was no reply thereafter from the appellant. On 28. 9. 73 the respondent wrote to the appellant that they did not require the Press any more as two years had since elapsed and the Government of West Bengal had cancelled their licence. It was also stated in that letter that the respondent had also failed to follow up properly. By that letter dated 28. 9. 73, the respondent requested the appellant to dispose of the parts assembled and to reimburse the amount of Rs. 18,000 paid to the appellant by them in advance. A reply followed from the appellant on 22. 10. 73 explaining the reason for their postponement of final assembling work of the Press. The reason, according to that letter, was an alleged promise by Mr. S. K. Gupta, the Project Adviser of the respondent, to communicate with the appellant by the end of October, 1973 as, according to that letter, Mr. S. K. Gupta had informed the appellant that the technology, based on which the specification of the Press ordered for was drawn, was not correct and the respondent wanted to import Japanese know-how. The respondent sent a letter thereafter on 13. 11. 73 alleging that the appellant's letter dated 22. 10. 73 was nothing but an attempt by the appellant to deny the respondent's legitimate claim of Rs. 18,000 paid as advance. By that letter dated 13. 11. 73, the respondent requested the appellant to refund to them the sum of Rs. 18,000, paid as advance within one month, failing which interest would be charged at the rate of 10% per annum from that date (13. 11. 73) upto the date of payment.

( 3 ) AS no refund of the sum of Rs. 18,000 was made by the appellant, the suit was brought on 3. 5. 74 for recovery of the sum of Rs. 18,000 along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 9. 7. 71 to Mar











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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