PRATABMULL RAMESHWAR Vs. MANICK CHAND DURGA PROSAD
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
MANICK CHAND DURGA PROSAD
Referred Judgements :-
EDWARDS V. HALL
NARAIN CHUNDER V. COHEN
POWELL V. KEMEPTON PARK RACECOURSE CO. LTD.
GLYNN V. MARGETSON
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE U.S. V. READ
SRIDHAR GOPINATH V. GORDHANDAS GOKUL DAS
HAROON TAR MD. AND CO. V. BENGAL DISTILLERIES
A. W. MEADS V. KING EMPEROR
TOLARAM REHUMAL V. STATE OF BOMBAY
SEKSARIA COTTON MILLS LTD,V. STATE OF BOMBAY
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. H. R. H. PRINCE ERNEST AUGUSTAS OF HANOVER
RENTON AND CO. V. PALMYRA TRADING CORP.
HOUSE OF LORDS OF LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON
TROJAN AND COMPANY VS. RM N N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR
KANAI LAL SUR VS. PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN
HASANALI S/O. MOHOMEDALI VS. DARA SHAH S/O. COOVERJEE DUNGORE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS is a buyer plaintiff's appeal from the judgment and decree of G. K. Mitter, J. dismissing the plaintiff's suit against the seller defendant for damages claiming Rs. 87,000/- on the ground that the contract between the parties was void under the West Bengal Ordinance No. XVII of 1950 being the Raw Jute (Central Jute Board and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, 1950 and on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove damages.
(2.)APART from these two questions, there was another issue which will be material for the purpose of this appeal and that was whether the plaint disclosed any cause of action. On the issue of cause of action, the learned trial Judge found against the respondents. The respondents asked our leave, which we granted, to urge that ground although no cross-objection had been taken by them. This point about the cause of action can be disposed of shortly at the outset.
(3.)ON behalf of the respondents, Mr. Das, the learned counsel, contends that the pleading in the plaint proceeds on the wrongful repudiation of the contract in suit and does not proceed on the cancellation of the contract. The wrongful repudiation of the contract is pleaded in the plaint to have taken place on the 7th March, 1951 which was before the date on which the plaintiff had the right to cancel under clause 6 (b) of the contract in suit. It is urged that acceptance of the wrongful repudiation was not pleaded in the plaint. It is also contended that if the wrongful repudiation took place on the 7th March, 1951 then the damage that was claimed as on the 6th April, 1951 was wrongly claimed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.