PRATABMULL RAMESHWAR Vs. MANICK CHAND DURGA PROSAD
LAWS(CAL)-1960-2-15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 19,1960

PRATABMULL RAMESHWAR Appellant
VERSUS
MANICK CHAND DURGA PROSAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EDWARDS V. HALL [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN CHUNDER V. COHEN [REFERRED TO]
POWELL V. KEMEPTON PARK RACECOURSE CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GLYNN V. MARGETSON [REFERRED TO]
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE U.S. V. READ [REFERRED TO]
SRIDHAR GOPINATH V. GORDHANDAS GOKUL DAS [REFERRED TO]
HAROON TAR MD. AND CO. V. BENGAL DISTILLERIES [REFERRED TO]
A. W. MEADS V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
TOLARAM REHUMAL V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SEKSARIA COTTON MILLS LTD,V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. H. R. H. PRINCE ERNEST AUGUSTAS OF HANOVER [REFERRED TO]
RENTON AND CO. V. PALMYRA TRADING CORP. [REFERRED TO]
HOUSE OF LORDS OF LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON [REFERRED TO]
TROJAN AND COMPANY VS. RM N N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
KANAI LAL SUR VS. PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN [REFERRED TO]
HASANALI S/O. MOHOMEDALI VS. DARA SHAH S/O. COOVERJEE DUNGORE [REFERRED TO]


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.
;


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