INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Vs. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Indian Oil Corporation has filed this appeal against the plaintiff- Municipality challenging the decree for specific performance of a contract and realisation of damages.

(2.) PLAINTIFF wanted bitumen (Asphalt) for undertaking road works. On enquiry the defendant stated the price and offered to effect delivery on receipt of demand draft for the full amount within two months. Demand draft for the full amount along with Ext. A3 order was placed before the Cochin office of the defendant on 17-2-1979. When reminded, the excuse given by the defendant for the delay in making supply was non availability of Railway waggons. As suggested by the defendant lorries were engaged by the plaintiff. Even then supply was not made. Finally when Ext. A10 suit notice was issued on 3-7-1980 the stand taken by the defendant in Ext. A11 reply was that the demand draft was not received and that there was no concluded contract and hence supply could be made only against payment at the current rate. That is how the suit was filed for specific performance and realisation of 12% interest as damages for the amount covered by the demand draft.

(3.) THERE cannot be any dispute regarding the fact that there was a concluded contract. Defendant stated its terms on enquiry by the plaintiff. Terms included price and full payment of the price by demand draft. The offer was to effect supply within two months of receipt of demand draft. Draft was entrusted to the Cochin office on 17-2-1979 along with Ext. A3 order. The present stand is that there was no concluded contract as the draft was not received at Madras and encashed. Even if that is so on account of the fact that the Cochin Office of the defendant did not forward the draft to the Madras Office, the plaintiff cannot be blamed. Payment to the Cochin Office along with the order was as good as making the payment and placing the order before the defendant. Further, the defendant is concluded by Ext.A5 reply admitting everything and explaining that delay in supply was due to non availability of Railway waggons. The further request of the defendant to arrange transport was also conceded by the plaintiff with intimation under Ext. A6 dated 17-1-1980. It was really uncharitable for an institution like the defendant thereafter to contend that there was no concluded contract and supply could be made only against payment at the current rate when the plaintiff was not all responsible for the delay.