IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Afro Asisan Agro Products (Singapore) Ltd., Represented By Its Power Attorney Holder, K.S. Kailasam – Appellant
Versus
Lekshmi Enterprises Kilikollur, Kollam-691004, A Partnership Firm, Represented By Its Managing Partner, Mrs. K. Vasanthakumari and Ors. – Respondents
RFA No. 194 Of 2008
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Indian Contract, Act, 1872 – Section 73, 74, 55 - Sale of Goods Act – Section 12, 13 - Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 55 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B - Breach of contract - Recovery of an amount - Appeal is against judgment which allowed recovery of an amount with future interest @ 6% after deducting counter claim - Alleged that there was a breach of contract by reasons of short supply, delayed supply, advance amounts having not been fully given credit – Forfeiture clause in contract is to ensure at least some amounts being secured, which can be set off on final loss determined - Para 34.
Finding of the Court: Court have found breach on defendant with respect to four out of five contracts, which are subject matter of suit – Court have also found that forfeiture clause does not come under S.74, which would enable defendant to get reasonable compensation, subject to maximum of named sum, even if there is no proof of loss or damage - On basis of interpretation of forfeiture clause court have to find defendant to be not entitled to claim any loss or damages since no legal injury, much less any loss was established - Defendant is also not entitled to forfeit advance amounts paid by plaintiff as against Ext.A7 contract - Difference in sale price obtained by defendant on subsequent sale, from price agreed upon in contract, not having been pleaded or proved there is no question of any such amounts being allowed as a loss or damage; which character claim for demurrage also assume – Court uphold judgment and decree of trial court and also counterclaim to extent it stood allowed by trial court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Vinod Chandran, J.]
1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam which allowed recovery of an amount of Rs.72,40,392.68 with future interest @ 6% after deducting the counter claim; which was confined to Rs.93,952.10. The defendant is in appeal and the case arose from different contracts for supply of raw cashew nuts to the plaintiff, sourced from abroad. The plaintiff procures raw cashew nuts, processes it in its ten factories; four owned by the plaintiff and six taken on lease/contract, and exports processed cashew as per the orders received. The defendant is a company registered in Singapore engaged mainly in the supply of raw cashew nuts. The 1st plaintiff, a partnership firm and a recognized two-star export house, entered into import contracts with the defendant, the transactions in which led to differences of opinion leading to the above suit. The contracts which are dealt with in the above suit, number eight, two of which were entirely cleared, two cancelled by the defendant, one partly cleared and partly repudiated and three fully repudiated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that there was a breach of contract by reasons of short supply, delayed supply, the advance amounts having not been fully given credit and more importantly the absence of a certification required for the purpose of ensuring the quality and quantity of the goods and the sea worthiness of the vessel in which the goods are shipped.
2. The terms were agreed upon by the parties and the same reduced to writing, which is first executed by the defendant in Singapore and sent to the plaintiff at Kollam, as an offer, which is accepted by the plaintiffs by putting their signature on the offer document thus concluding the contract. The advance amounts are deposited by the plaintiff to the account of the defendant in Singapore, through the plaintiff's Bank at Kollam, which varied between 5% & 10% of the total consideration payable for the quantity agreed upon at the stipulated rate; evident from the contract. There is a time stipulated in all the contracts within which the supply is to be carried out, but however subject to the availability of vessels. On the consignment being shipped from the port of origin, which in all these contracts was Abidjan in Ivory Coast, the Bill of Lading ('B/L' for brevity) is transmitted to the bankers of the plaintiff by the defendant's bank and on the plaintiff remitting the balance consideration as per the invoice sent along with the B/L, the plaintiff receives the goods at the port of entry and processes it in its factories. The plaintiff alleged breach of the terms of the contract by the defendant, when the plaintiff refused to clear the goods imported into the country.
3. The defendant alleged that Lloyd's Certification was not a mandatory condition of the contracts and in any event the shipments reached India; which makes the necessity of a certificate redundant. The defendant alleged breach on the plaintiff firm and forfeited the advance amounts; as per the terms of the contract. The plaintiffs sued for return of the advance amounts against which, supply was either not delivered or refused to be cleared by the plaintiff, on allegation of breach of contract. The defendant raised a counter claim alleging liability of loss including that of freight and demurrage from the plaintiff, which, according to them occurred only by reason of the refusal of the plaintiff to clear the goods. At the time of filing of the written statement, there was no computation of loss, which according to the defendant could be only computed after the sale of the goods which were refused to be cleared by the plaintiff. The liability to freight and demurrage were computed in a tabular form in the written statement as on that date, but there was no further amendment made to the pleadings alleging any loss having been occasioned. There was a further claim for the plaintiff, other than the advance amo
Provash Chandra Dalui vs. Biswanath Banerjee
Shafhi Mohammed v. State of Hmachal Pradesh
Kailash Nath Associates vs. Delhi Development Authority
Varkey Thomas v. Vijayendra Kurup
Muralidhar Chiranjilal v. Harish Chandra Dwaraka Das
Sait Thartajee KhimChand v. Yelamarti Satyam
Kaliya v State of M.P (2013) 10 SCC 758
M/s China Cotton Exporters v Beharilal Ramcharan Cotton Mills Ltd.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kusharao Gorantyal and Others
SupremeToday
The buyer cannot repudiate a contract after dispatch of goods unless evidence shows the goods were not as per specification; where title passed implies acceptance and obligation to pay.
appellant/plaintiff became entitled to recovery of the price of the goods sold. In that view of the matter, there was no question of the appellant/plaintiff replacing any goods as they were entitled ....
The contractor is not liable for destination shortages absent sufficient evidence, affirming the court's findings on liability for withheld amounts.
Unilateral deductions of demurrage charges from a contractor's bills are impermissible without proper determination of liability as per contractual obligations.
Actual damages must be proved for recovery in breach of contract. Clauses implying penalties cannot be enforced without valid demonstration of loss.
Common carriers are liable for short delivery due to negligence under the Carriers Act, and terms limiting liability may not be enforceable if inadequately notified to the other party.
A freight forwarding agent does not have a general lien over the goods of a consignor unless there is an express contract to that effect or the agent falls under one of the categories of persons enti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.