ARJUN GENERAL TRADERS Vs. KANTHI OIL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant Arjun General Traders is the appellant against which a decree has been passed for a total sum of Rs. 17,925/- which the plaintiff claimed as damages for breach of contract.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff Kanthi Oil Mills is that the plaintiff placed an order with the defendant for sale of 300 bags of groundnut oil cake at Rs. 38.25 per bag of 80 Kgs. to the plaintiff under confirmation note No. 2006 dated 1.4.1972 through the brokers Raja Ramanlal & Co., Madras. THE delivery was to be made through wagons indented in April, 1972. THE plaintiff placed another order with the defendant through the same brokers under confirmation Note No. 2120 dated 12.4.1972 for sale of 600 bags o f Expeller groundnut oil cake at Rs. 39.50 per bag of 70 kgs. which includes C.S.T., ?C? form condition F.O.R., Madras, to be delivered through wagons indented in May first week. THE brokers Raja Ramanlal & Co. supplied to the defendant 900 gunnies for the said delivery. Since the plaintiff did not hear anything from the defendant the brokers Raja Ramanlal & Co. wrote a letter to the defendant on 28.8.1972 calling upon it to supply the goods under the aforesaid two contracts. But to that the defendant replied making false statement that since the plaintiff had not supplied empty gunnies the contracts were cancelled. Thus the defendant committed breach of contract. THE plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for this reach of contract. THE defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the difference between the contract rate and the market rate from the date of breach viz., 21.9.1972. THE defendant is also bound to pay a sum of Rs. 3,600/- being the cost of 900 gunny bags at the rate of Rs. 4/- per gunny bag. On these pleadings the plaintiff claimed a total sum of Rs. 17,925/-.

(3.) THE trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced held that the plaintiffs have supplied 900 gunny bags to the defendants and the defendants committed breach of contract and therefore the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. THE trial court further held that the suit is not barred by limitation, and it also held that the suit is not barred under S. 17 of the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act 1952 as contended by the defendants. On these findings the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. As against this Judgment the defendant has come up in appeal.