G A GALIA KOTWALA AND CO LTD Vs. K R L NARASIMHAN AND BROTHER
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.A. GALIA KOTWALA AND CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER AGENT
K.R.L. NARASIMHAN AND BROTHER BY MANAGING PARTNER, K.R.L.
Click here to view full judgement.
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. -
(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants are merchants carrying on business at Coimbatore, the defendants being merchants of Salem and manufacturers of tapioca starch. The plaintiffs' case is that in January and February 1946 the defendants entered into three contracts for the supply of 35 tons, 50 tons and 100 tons of tapioca starch to the plaintiffs at Rs. 15-8-0 per cwt. F. O. R. Sankarldrug, Sankaridrug being in Salem district, and as against the said three contracts the defendants received from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 21-2-1946. The sale and purchase of tapioca were subject to the Starch Control Order of 1945 and licence was necessary for selling the commodity. Since under the contract the goods were to be despatched outside the district to Ahmedabad, Indore, Bombay and other places in addition to a licence under the Starch Control Order an export permit from, the Collector of the District was necessary under the Madras Tapioca (Movement Control) Order. The plaintiffs state that the necessary export permits from the authorities were applied for by the defendants on account of the plaintiffs & that such permits were received in May 1946, but the defendants got them wrongfully cancelled with the evil intention of resiling from the contract and with a view to sell the goods at a higher rate and that thereby they committed a breach of contract.
(2.) The defendants deny that there was any completed enforceable contract and state that the plaintiffs, considering that the price of tapioca starch was rising, agreed to pay a higher rate and eventually went back on their promise and therefore the defendants were compelled to cancel the application for export permit on 17-5-1946, though if only the plaintiffs were prepared to stand by their promise the defendants could have renewed the same even on 17-5-1946. The defendants further contend that there was no breach or cancellation of the contract and that the contract became impossible of performance when the transport of tapioca was banned.
(3.) The lower Court found that the contracts between the parties were complete but that the suit contracts became impossible of performance on the part of the defendants for want of export permits and railway facilities in respect of the goods agreed to be sold and dismissed the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.