GANGA SARAN Vs. FIRM RAM CHARAN RAM GOPAL
LAWS(SC)-1951-11-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on November 01,1951

GANGA SARAN Appellant
VERSUS
RAM CHARAN RAM GOPAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

OFFICIAL RECEIVER JHANSI VS. JUGAL KISHORE LACHHI RAM JAINA HYDERABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1962-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHUSHAN MISRA VS. JAYATRI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1967-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. MUKUNDA OJA [LAWS(GAU)-1997-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
A P S E BOARD VS. A P CARBIDES LTD [LAWS(APH)-1985-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
JAYARAMA REDDY T M VS. B SREERAMAIAH CHETTY [LAWS(APH)-2000-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
SM DURGA DEVI BHAGAT VS. J B ADVANI AND CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1970-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM BACHHRAJ AMOLAKCHAND VS. FIRM NANDLAL SITARAM [LAWS(MPH)-1962-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
NAVNITAL and CO VS. KISHANCHAND and CO [LAWS(BOM)-1955-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LTD VS. K L KAPUR [LAWS(P&H)-1955-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
COURT OF WARDS DADA SIBA ESTATE VS. RAJA DHARAN DEV CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1959-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
GURDARSHAN SINGH S/O DALIP SINGH VS. BISHAN SINGH S O UTTAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1961-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
M/S BRAHMAPUTRA REALTORS PVT. LTD VS. M/S G.G.TRANSPORT (P) LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2013-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
DEVINDER KAUR VS. SURJIT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. I.K. SOHAN SINGH VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1963-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
SATYABRATA GHOSE VS. MUGNEERAM BANGUR AND CO [LAWS(SC)-1953-11-8] [REFERRED]
HPA INTERNATIONAL VS. BHAGWANDAS FATEH CHAND DASWANI [LAWS(SC)-2004-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. K MOHANDAS [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
OM BUILDERS (P) LTD VS. ANIL CHINUBHAI KILACHAND & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-241] [REFERRED]
M/S. TUNGABADRA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED NO. 322/3, II FLOOR, SREE SAPTHAGIRI ENCLAVE COLLEGE ROAD, HOSPET VS. THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NO. 1, RAJAJI SALAI CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-167] [REFERRED TO]
K.P. JOY, S/O. LATE K.P. POULO, AGED 57 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. A VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-119] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VALECHA VS. STATE OF M P & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VALECHA VS. STATE OF MP & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER VS. RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA VS. ALIMENTA S.A. [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHBHAI JIVRAJBHAI GUJARATI VS. KRISHNA PRAVINBHAI GUJARATI [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-46] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Fazl Ali, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by special leave against a decision of the High Court at Allahabad, reversing the decision of the trial Court, in a suit instituted by the appellant to recover damages from the respondent-firm for breach of a contract.
(2.)It appears that between 10th and 18-4-1941, the parties entered into 5 contracts, by which the respondent-firm undertook to supply to the appellant 184 bales of cloth of certain specifications manufactured by the New Victoria Mills, Kanpur and the Raza textile Mills, Rampur. Only 99 bales were taken up and there was a dispute about remaining 85 bales. On 17-10-1941, a settlement was arrived at between parties, and it was agreed that the respondent-firm should deliver to the appellant 61 bales, and that the goods should be delivered by 17-11-1941. The actual text of the agreement (Ex. 4) was as follows:
"61 bales as noted below are to be given to you by us.

We shall continue sending goods as soon as they are prepared to you upto Magsar Badi 15 Sambat 1998. We shall go on supplying goods to you of the Victoria Mills as soon as they are supplied to us by the said Mill.

(Specifications of cloth given here).

We shall go on delivering the goods to you upto Magsar Badi 15 out of the goods noted above which will be prepared by the Mill."

As the 61 bales were not supplied, the appellant sent a telegraphic notice to the respondent-firm on 20-11-1941 to the following effect:"Give delivery of our 61 bales through Bank. Otherwise suing within 3 days." The appellant did not receive any reply to this notice, and so he instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal, on 23-4-1942, claiming a sum of Rs. 9,808 and odd, which, according to him, represented the loss sustained by him on account of the rise in the market rate of the contracted goods, and he also claimed costs and interest. The respondent-firm resisted the suit on a number of grounds, but their main plea, with which alone we are concerned in this appeal, was that the performance of the contract had been frustrated by circumstances beyond their control and hence the appellant's claim must fail. This plea was negatived by the trial Court, but it was upheld by the High Court, and hence this appeal.

(3.)The only point which arises in this appeal is whether the circumstances of the case afford any basis for the application of the doctrine of frustration of contract, a doctrine which is embodied, so far as this country is concerned in Ss. 32 and 56, Contract Act, 1872.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.