UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOUJI LAL SHAW
LAWS(CAL)-1960-1-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 12,1960

UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Appellant
VERSUS
MOUJI LAL SHAW Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STANIFORTH V. LYALL [REFERRED TO]
YATES V. WHYTE [REFERRED TO]
BARROW V. ARNAUD [REFERRED TO]
BRADBUM V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY [REFERRED TO]
JEBSON V. EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK CO. [REFERRED TO]
RODOCANACHI V. MILBUM [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL V. MOHAN LAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
A.K.A.S.JAMAL V. MOOLA DAWOOD,SONS AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
WILLIAMS BROTHERS V. AGIUS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GHATTURBHUJ VITHALDAS JASANI VS. MORESHWAR PARASHRAM [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL NAGPUR RAILWAY CO LTD VS. RUTTANJI RAMJI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MMTC LIMITED VS. H.J. BAKER AND BROS. INC. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-437] [REFERRED TO]
KHEMCHAND PEMCHAND VS. DALHOUSIE JUTE COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-1967-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
PHOSPHATE COMPANY LIMITED VS. EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC [LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-151] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Banerjee, J. - (1.)This appeal, at the instance of the defendant Union of India, is directed against a decree for damages, amounting to Rs. 21,716/-, on account of non-delivery of goods.
(2.)Facts, as hereinafter stated, leading upto the sale of the goods, of which the delivery of the whole could not be given, are not disputed. Chewringhee Sales Bureau Ltd., (Defendant respondent No. 2) were auctioneers appointed by the Union Government and under express instructions from the Regional Commissioner (Disposals) (Ex. I(5) and I(4)) advertised for sale in public auction of 145 tons of Sal timber, as per conditions of sale contained in the notice (Ex. A). Thereafter, on 15-10-1046, the aforesaid goods were sold in auction at the workshop and store yard of Messrs. Indian Metal Corporation at 16, Belur Road, Howrah, where the goods were stacked and plaintiff Moujilal Shaw made the highest bid at Rs. 3,500/-, as the bid sheet (Ex. H) shows. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1000/- with the fall of the hammer and later on the same day, paid the balance of the price along with the sales tax. All these appear from the advance slip (Ex. 6) and the Cash Bill (Ex. 4). A delivery order on the stockist of the goods, Messrs. Indian Metal Corporation, the purport of which is contained in the plaintiff's letter, Ex. 1, directing the said Stockist that delivery must be given "by measurement (weight by weight) and a receipt obtained" was made over to the plaintiff.
(3.)The plaintiff, however, alleged that he could not take delivery, firstly, because the stock of timber sold, was found short by about 33 per cent and, secondly, because the stockist refused delivery. These will appear from letters marked Ex. 1(d) and I(a), respectively dated the 17th and the 21st October, 1946.
;


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