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

1951 Supreme(Mad) 141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Satyanarayana Rao, J.
Ambika Palayakat Company
Versus
N. Kannappa Pillai
C.R.P.N0. 164 of 1951.
Decided On : 13 April 1951

Advocates:
M.K. Harihara Ayyar for Petitioner.
The Government Pleader (P. Satyanarayana Raju) and K. Venkataraman for the State.

Filing of suit for price of goods sold.

Headnote:Court-fee -Payabilirty of Court fee by defendant on counter claim for damages for breach of warranty and for less of reputation.

Judgment.-

I think the view taken by the lower Court regarding the payment of court-fee is correct. The suit was for recovery of the price of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant claimed damages under two heads: a sum of Rs.2,274-3-0 as damages for breach of warranty, namely, that the goods did not answer the description of the goods in respect of which the contract of sale was entered into; and a sum of Rs.3,000 as damages for loss of reputation. The lower Court held that the defendant was entitled to claim the sum of Rs.2,274-3-0 without paying court-fee as an amount which could be considered in diminution of the price that was claimed, but not the sum of Rs.3,000, and therefore it directed that the defendant should pay court-fee on Rs.3,000 if it intended to prosecute the claim as a set-off. It is contended that this sum of Rs.3,000 is also loss which has directly resulted by the breach of warranty. It is difficult to accept this contention in support of which no authority has been cited. The direct loss by reason of the breach of warranty is the loss in the value of the goods, as inferior goods were supplied according to the defendant’s contention in place of superior goods for which it bargained with the plaintiff. The damages for loss of reputation may be further damages which it had suffered, but it cannot claim the amount to be taken into consideration in diminution of the price for which the plaintiff instituted the suit. These damages are not the direct result of the breach of warranty and they may be further damages within the meaning of section 59, sub-section (2) of the Sale of Goods Act. The view taken therefore by the lower Court that if the defendant wishes to prosecute the claim, it must pay court-fee on the sum of Rs.3,000 is correct.

The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs payable to the Government Pleader. The petitioner is granted two weeks’ time from this date for payment of the court-fee on the sum of Rs.3,000.

K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.


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