NARAYANA CHANDRASEKHARA SHENOY AND BROS Vs. R PALANIAPPA MUDALIAR
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
NARAYANA CHANDRASEKHARA SHENOY AND BROS.
Click here to view full judgement.
Subba Rao, J. -
(1.) This second appeal arises out of O. S. No. 601 of 1945, a suit filed by the appellant for recovering from the defendant damages for breach of contract.
(2.) On 6-10-1944, the defendant and the plaintiff entered into a contract whereunder it was agreed that the defendant should deliver 151 bags of Kannady quality jaggery at Rs. 20 per bag free on railway Karur. The defendant despatched the goods in Karur and they reached Calicut on 22-10-1944. The plaintiff on inspect-tion of the goods discovered that they were not in accordance with the quality agreed to be delivered. It appears that the agent of the defendant who was in Calicut persuaded the plaintiff to take the goods at Rs. 19 per bag with a promise that the defendant would deliver the goods of Narayana Chandrasekhara Shenoy and Bros. by sole Proprietor Narayana Shanbog vs.... Page 1 of 3 the requisite quality in accordance with the terms of the contract dated 6-10- 1944.
(3.) Both the Courts found that by reason of the aforesaid agreement the defendant had agreed to deliver the goods under the earlier contract. Unfortunately on 25-10-1944, the Board of Revenue, Madras, issued a Press Note controlling the movement by rail of cane jaggery from any station in Trichinopoly District to Calicut. The effect of this notification was that the defendant could not put the goods on rail at Karur. Then correspondence passed between the parties in regard to the manner of delivery. Exs. D. 4 and D. 5. letters written by the plaintiff to the defendant, show that the plaintiff was not inclined to bear the additional expenditure he might incur in case the goods were delivered by lorry or otherwise. Whatever ambiguity there might be in the letters Exs. D. 4 and D. 5, in a reply to the letter by the defendant to the plaintiff, Ex. D. 6 dated 6-1-1945, wherein the defendant wrote to the plaintiff to come over to Karur and take delivery of the bags, the plaintiff wrote that, he was not willing to do so. As P. W. 1 he admitted in his chief-examination that in the reply notice the defendant said he would deliver the goods at Karur but that he was not prepared for it.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.