PRITHVI RAJ - (1.) The plaintiff through this suit has prayed for a decree against the defendants to the effect that by the non-acceptance of the advance sample by the defendants the contract of supply dated 4th June. 1968, had come to an end. The plaintiff further seeks a declaration that the breach of the contract was on the part of the defendants and that defendants are not entitled to recover any amount from them. A further declaration is sought to the effect that it be held that there is no valid contract between the parties as the offer made by the plaintiff was not specifically accepted by the defendants and that the defendants be restrained from effecting any recovery from the plaintiff.
(2.) Contract dated 4th June, 1968. for supply of paper water-proof Bitumen in (size) of 36" to the extent of 3,36,677 Kgs. to the specification No. IND-ME/ 577 (a1 was concluded between the parties. By letter dated l6th June, 1968. the Chief Inspector of Military Explosives substituted the abovesaid specification by specification No. JSS-1212. On the plaintiff's asking for a copy of the substituted specification, defendant No. 2 vide its communication dated 5th July. 1968, reiterated that the specification governing the supply had been correctly mentioned in the Acceptance of Tender as IND/ME/ 577 (a1. The case of the plaintiff is that they were to make the supply only if the advance sample submitted by them had been accepted. The advance sample having been rejected the plaintiff were prevented from making the supply. Further, the grievance of the plaintiff is that the advance samples were rejected by the defendants without any ostensible reason and that the contract had come to an end and frustrated so that no liability could be fixed against the plaintiff. The contract having been breached by the defendants, the plaintiff aver, they had no right to make risk purchase after the expiry of the specified period of six months of the failure to comply with the contract.
(3.) The plaintiff allege that the defendants unilaterally and arbitrarily made a demand of Rs. 1,40,000.00 from the plaintiff threatening to recover the said amount from the deposit of the plaintiff lying with them and also from the other dues of the plaintiff.;