ORISSA TEXTILE MILLS LTD Vs. GANESH DAS RAMKISHUN
LAWS(PAT)-1960-8-2
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on August 26,1960

ORISSA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
GANESH DAS RAMKISHUN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WERTHEIM V. CHICOUTIMI PULP CO. [REFERRED TO]
JAMAL V. MOLLA DAWOOD,SONS AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
BIJAY SINGH V. BILASROY AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL JANKIDAS A FIRM VS. MOHANLAL [REFERRED TO]
NICHOLAS SCHINAS VS. NEMAZIE [REFERRED TO]
RAMDHAN DAS RAM KISSAN FIRM VS. KISHORI CHAND GEOR FIRM [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BAIJNATH MADAN LALL [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH JHA VS. KESORI LAL [REFERRED TO]
ERROLL MACKAY VS. MAHARAJA DHIRAJ KAMESHWAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1970-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2000-8-55] [REFERRED]
GO NEELAHRAM VS. K SIVARAMAN ALWA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-570] [REFERRED TO]
SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EAST GROUP OF ENGINEERS VS. GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(SIK)-2021-8-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Raj Kishore Prasad, J. - (1.)The present application, in revision, has been presented, by the defendants, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the judgment of the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Muzaffarpur, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for damages for breach of contract,
(2.)What happened was this : On the 6th January, 1956, an order was placed by the plaintiff with defendant 1 -- Orissa Textile Limited Cuttack -- through its selling agent at Muzaffarpur, defendant 2, for supplying five bales of dhotis of certain specifications at certain fixed rates, besides Excise Duty, etc. The said goods were to be sent to Muzaffarpur Railway Station by Goods Train at owner's risk, and their delivery was to be given within January, 1956. This order, which is exhibit 3, was accepted by defendant 1, through its agent, defendant 2, by its letter of the 27th January, 1956, Exhibit E, by which defendant 1 agreed to deliver the goods within January-February, 1956.
(3.)Out of these five bales, only one bale was supplied to the plaintiff till February, 1956, but the remaining four bales were not at all supplied by the defendants to the plaintiff. Defendant 2, the agent of defendant 1, however, by a letter of the 6th March, 1956, Exhibit A (1), informed the plaintiff that the four bales, which remained to be delivered could be delivered to him if he agreed to pay the new Excise Duty. The plaintiff, in his reply, by a letter of the 10th March, 1956, Exhibit A, informed defendant 2, that he was prepared to take delivery of the remaining bales, but only at the old contract rate. The remaining goods therefore, were not supplied by the defendants to the plaintiff.


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