- (1.) IN this appeal on behalf of the defendants, a money decree on the ground of excess payment received by the defendants has been challenged. Facts are generally admitted. The plaintiff's, a public limited company, were purchasing scrap copper from the defendants under a certain agreement. One of the terms and conditions was under: ?1/20 (19 x prevalent MMTC rate of copper ingot/bar to actual users obtainingon the date of the scrap is actually lifted by the party ? 21470). The price will be Ex. P. & T. Depot. Sales Tax and any other duties and taxes will be extra. Handling charges etc. if any, will also be borne by the purchaser.? According to the plaintiff's, pursuant to the said contract, certain purchases were made in the month of March, 1973. On 12.1.1973, the third defendant informed the plaintiff's that the Post Master Generals at Trivandrum and at Bangalore were advised to release the recovered copper wire scrap and that the sale would be governed by the conditions incorporated therein. Subsequently, by letter dated 9.3.1973 addressed to the Controller of Telegraph Stores, Madras, a copy of which was sent to the plaintiff's, the third defendant directed the release of copper scrap wire, fixing the sale price at Rs. 12,464/- per Metric Ton, valid upto 31.3.1973. The plaintiff's were also informed about the said price and they accepted the same. However, in May 1973, the third defendant called upon the plaintiff's to pay an additional sum of Rs. 2,403/50 per metric ton plus taxes, with reference to 200 metric tons of copper scrap, taken delivery of by the plaintiff's in March 1973, on the plea that the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of INdia Limited (for short ?M.M.T.C?) had revised the sale price fixed earlier by them from 1.3.1973 and that the plaintiff's had to pay the difference. The plaintiff's protested but under the threat of stopping further supply/sale, they paid the additional sum. IN that written statement, defendants alleged that according to the terms and conditions of the contract, the price payable by the plaintiff's was based on the prevalent MMTC rate of copper ingot/bar as on the date on which it was actually lifted by the plaintiff's, and the plaintiff's having agreed to the same, there was not illegal demand when they found that MMTC had revised the rate from 1.3.1973 and thus the plaintiff's were liable to pay the price of copper wire scrap accordingly.
(2.) LEARNED trial Judge took up as a composite issue questions whether the plaintiff's were bound to pay an additional sum of Rs. 2,403/50 per metric ton towards the sale of copper wire scrap by way of difference in price as contended by the defendants, whether defendants were entitled to the additional amount claimed by them by way of additional sales tax and whether the plaintiff's were entitled to the amount of Rs. 4,89,532/80, and answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff's. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the crux is the contract under which the plaintiff's were obliged to pay the prevalent M.M.T.C. rate for copper ingots, obtaining on the date the scrap was actually lifted, which was higher than the price actually paid by the plaintiff's in the month of March, 1973. He has contended that although M.M.T.C. had revised the rate, it was not in the knowledge of the concerned Authorities of the Post and Telegraph Department, when they informed the plaintiff's in the month of March, 1973. However, when the correct rate fixed by the M.M.T.C. from 13.1973 became known to the defendants, they immediately informed the plaintiff's about the actual rate and demanded the difference in price. The plaintiff's, who were obliged under the contract to pay the prevalent M.M.T.C. rate, were asked to pay only the rate at which the copper scrap was sold at the relevant time. It is not necessary to refer to various communications or the contents of the documents which have been produced on behalf of the par ties. Learned trial Judge has made certain com ments about the omissions on the part of the defendants and it reads as under: ?Unfortunately, in my opinion, the defendants had not cared to place before this Court such records as are permissible under the Evidence Act. It is equally important to note that though in the course of trial, it is sought to be established that on 9.3.1973, the price was fixed at Rs. 19,370/-, that on 5.4.1973 the above price was revised by reducing the same considerably that the defendants collected only at the revised rate, but not at the enhanced prevalent rate fixed on 93.1973 and that therefore t he plaintiff can have no grievance about such payment, these particulars were not set out in the written statement. We, however, fail to appreciate how any extrinsic evidence was needed for finding out the price fixed for sale on 93.1973 or on 5.4.1973. Relevant documents were already on record plaintiff's had not disputed at any time that M.M.T.C. had revised the rate claimed by the defendants, their case was, as stated above, that they had purchased on the basis of the sale price which the defendants had represented to them in the communications aforementioned. In short, their case was that having once sold at a selling rate duly communicated to the plaintiff's, defen dants were not entitled to claim any higher rate for the commodity already sold. Learned trial Judge has taken a correct view, if we say so with respect, in holding that M.M.T.C. price, whether revised or not, plaintiff's could not be asked to pay any higher price for the commodity sold to them in the month of March, 1973, than the one communicated to them, vide Ex. P-5, a document not denied by the defendants. Defendants cannot take shelter under aforequoted condition of the agreement to force upon the plaintiff a higher rate of sale price than one stated in Ex. P-5. Once sold to the plaintiff's, goods ceased to belong to the defendants; since they had already realised consideration thereof, no further consideration remained to be per formed. Moreover, it was the defendants who rep resented, vide Exs. P-5 and P-6, that the selling rate for the month of April, 1973, was Rs. 12,464/- per metric ton. S. 115 of the Evidence Act states as under: Estoppel ? When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted anotherperson to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.? Once the selling price had been declared, defendants bound themselves to the said declaration; even if there was a mistake, they were to blame themselves. They cannot, for their omission, be allowed to put any burden on the plaintiff's, saying that there was a mistake in quoting the sale price.
(3.) THERE is a cross-objection limited to the rejection of the plaintiff's' prayer for interest upon the excess money that the defendants had realised from the plaintiff's. It appears to us, however, that defendants acted under a genuine mistake when they quoted a lower price than the price fixed by M.M.T.C. plaintiff's got this advantage and purchased the copper scrap. Had this mistake not occurred and defendants had quoted the price fixed by M.M.T.C, defendants would have sold copper scrap to the plaintiff's only at the rate fixed by the M.M.T.C. It is not a case, therefore, in which this Court should even remotely think that there was any deliberate act on the part of the defendants in demanding from the plaintiff's, the additional price of the copper scrap supplied to them. We are satisfied that no interest need be granted to the plaintiff's in the instant case. In the result, both the appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.;