MYSORE SUGAR CO LTD Vs. MANOHAR METAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1974 passed by the principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in R. A. No. 139 of 1973 on his file allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1973 passed by the IV Addl. I Munsiff Bangalore, in O. S. No. 609 of 1968 on his file decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

(2.) The Mysore Sugar Company, the plaintiff in the suit, advertised for sale of certain items like copper ingots, copper scraps as well as brass tubes available with the company at Mandya by its notification dated 27th July, 1966. The defendant offered to purchase the same by his letter dated 30-6-1966. The plaintiff accepted the offer of the defendant to purchase the various items and, thereafter, the defendant lifted certain items on partpayment and when it came to lifting of copper ingots, he sought for time to pay the balance and to remove the same separating it from other things with which it was mixed up. The defendant had to lift 2,000 kgs. of copper scrap and 2,000 kgs. of copper ingots valued at Rs. 48,503-96. He wrote to the plaintiff on 28-4-1956 rasing objections regarding percentage of copper contents in the articles The plaintiff intimated to the defendant on 12-9-1966 stat. ing that no certificate for purity of the metal would be given and the material was sold on "as is and where is" condition. In splte of repeated reminders and demands the defendant did not take delivery of the remaining goods and remit the value. The letter dated 22-11-1966 to the defendants also did not meet with favourable response. Therefore, the plaintiff re-sold copper tubes and copper ingots through an advertisement dated 30th December, 1966 to M/s Karnataka Hardware, Avenue Road, Bangalore. By the said re-sale, the plaintiff incurred loss of Rs. 8,643-96. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant to make good the loss. The defendant did not. Hence the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of R,. 8,643-96 less Rs. 500/- being the initial deposit by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed, in all Rs. 8,143-96 Ps from the defendant along with costs and interest.

(3.) The defendant contended that the suit was not tenable. According to him, what was offered was copper scraps and copper ingots in the advertisement and what was found at the spot was alloy and not pure copper. Therefore, he contended that the plaintiff committed breach of contract. He further contended that the plaintiff did not have right to re-sell and that compensation, if any, could only be recovered under the general principles contame in section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter refened to as the Act). According to him, section 54 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was not applicable. The defendant, according to him, was not liable to pay any damages. On the other hand, he claimed compensation of Rs, 1,000/-.