INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED Vs. PRASANTA KUMAR SUR
LAWS(SC)-1961-1-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
January 25,1961
INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
PRASANTA KUMAR SUR (DECEASED)
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
HAR PRATAP SINGH VS. SATYA NARAIN MISRA [LAWS(ALL)-1979-9-48] [REFERRED TO]GANESH PRASAD VS. SARASWATI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1981-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
BISHAMBHAR NATH AGRAWAL VS. KISHAN CHAND [LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-127] [REFERRED TO]
PUDI LAZARUS VS. REV JOHNSON EDWARD [LAWS(APH)-1975-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
SARAL KUMAR CHATTERJEE VS. MADHUSUDAN AUDDY [LAWS(CAL)-1964-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
ITTIRAVI NAMBOODIRI VS. KRISHNANKUTTY MENON [LAWS(KER)-1964-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
DEVAN MAN MOHAN LAL VS. V L PIARY LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1972-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
SAJEDA BANO VS. MUSHIR MOHAMMAD KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-1987-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
MATESHWAR DAYAL VS. AMAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1982-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
DHANBAI VS. PHEROZSHAH [LAWS(RAJ)-1970-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
Shree Ram VS. Ratanlal [LAWS(ALL)-1963-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VARGHESE VS. ANNAMMA [LAWS(KER)-1970-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN VS. DEVASSY [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-100] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMY PADAYACHI VS. RANGASWAMI PADAYACHI (DIED) AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1976-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL WADHWA VS. HARIPADA CHAKROBERTY [LAWS(SC)-1988-10-36] [DISTINGUISHED AN AWARD IS BAD ON THE GROUND OF ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF IT ONLY WHEN IN THE AWARD]
S K KOCHAR VS. NIMMI SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1997-4-86] [REFERRED TO]
POTLURI BABU RAO VS. SISTLA NEELAGRIVA SASTRY [LAWS(APH)-1994-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA NATH SEN VS. SANTASILA DEBI [LAWS(CAL)-1968-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRATUL KUMAR RAJ VS. SITA BALA KAYAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-3-222] [REFERRED TO]
KHARATILAL HAVELIRAM KALRA AND ORS. VS. JAGDISH RAJARAM SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
BANI SINGH VS. MUKESH GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-334] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI KANTE VS. RAMBHAROSILAL AGRAWAL (DEAD) [LAWS(MPH)-2013-3-277] [REFERRED]
ABDUL ASEES S/O MUHAMMED VS. A R MUHAMMED ILLYAS S/O V ABDUL RAHIM [LAWS(KER)-2019-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Kapur, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The appellant was the defendant in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen and respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff, and the second respondent was a proforma defendant. The facts of this case are these:
(2.)On February 4, 1941, the respondent sold the property in dispute to the appellant for a sum of Rs.10,000. On February 10, 1941, there was an agreement for reconveyance within a period upto February 10, 1943, for a sum of Rs. 10,001. The relevant clause of this agreement was the third clause which was as follows:-
"Clause 3-The purchase shall be completed by the purchasers within two years, i.e., to say on or before the 10th day of February, 1943, time being the essence of the contract. If the purchasers shall on or before the 10th day of February, 1943, pay to the Vendor a sum of Rs.10,001 the vendor shall at the cost of the purchasers execute such conveyance as may be necessary for conveying and transferring its right, title and interest in the said property free from encumbrances, if any created by it".
(3.)On November 26, 1942, the solicitor for respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the appellant stating that that respondent was ready and willing to have the purchase completed as early as possible on payment of Rs. 10,001 along with that letter a draft conveyance was sent for approval but all this was subject to the result of a search as to the encumbrances if any created by the appellant. On November 30,1942, the solicitors for the appellant company wrote back saying that immediate arrangements should be made for giving inspection of the agreement of sale on which the respondents were relying as the appellant was unable to trace the copy of the said agreement from its record. Again on December 11, 1942, the respondent's solicitor sent a letter stating:
"My client is very eager to complete the purchase and the full consideration money therefore is lying idle in his hands awaiting the return of the relative draft conveyance as approved by you on your clients' behalf."
To this the reply of the appellant's solicitors dated December 18, 1942, was:-
"Our clients deny that there was any concluded or valid agreement for sale with your client or with any other person in respect of the above premises".
(2.)On February 4, 1941, the respondent sold the property in dispute to the appellant for a sum of Rs.10,000. On February 10, 1941, there was an agreement for reconveyance within a period upto February 10, 1943, for a sum of Rs. 10,001. The relevant clause of this agreement was the third clause which was as follows:-
"Clause 3-The purchase shall be completed by the purchasers within two years, i.e., to say on or before the 10th day of February, 1943, time being the essence of the contract. If the purchasers shall on or before the 10th day of February, 1943, pay to the Vendor a sum of Rs.10,001 the vendor shall at the cost of the purchasers execute such conveyance as may be necessary for conveying and transferring its right, title and interest in the said property free from encumbrances, if any created by it".
(3.)On November 26, 1942, the solicitor for respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the appellant stating that that respondent was ready and willing to have the purchase completed as early as possible on payment of Rs. 10,001 along with that letter a draft conveyance was sent for approval but all this was subject to the result of a search as to the encumbrances if any created by the appellant. On November 30,1942, the solicitors for the appellant company wrote back saying that immediate arrangements should be made for giving inspection of the agreement of sale on which the respondents were relying as the appellant was unable to trace the copy of the said agreement from its record. Again on December 11, 1942, the respondent's solicitor sent a letter stating:
"My client is very eager to complete the purchase and the full consideration money therefore is lying idle in his hands awaiting the return of the relative draft conveyance as approved by you on your clients' behalf."
To this the reply of the appellant's solicitors dated December 18, 1942, was:-
"Our clients deny that there was any concluded or valid agreement for sale with your client or with any other person in respect of the above premises".
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.