REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BEHARILAL BALDEOPRASAD FIRM OF MERCHANTS BY PARTNER Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ISHERWOOD V. WHITMORE [REFERRED TO]
PERKINS V. BELL [REFERRED TO]
GOPALA IYENGAR V. VENKATAKRISHNA IYENGAR [REFERRED TO]
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS AND CARRIAGE CO. V. FIAT MOTORS [REFERRED TO]
ANDREW YALE AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: GANAPATHI PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
RAMDEYAL RAM NARAIN V. BHAIRO BUX [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM V. DEOTI [REFERRED TO]
MALLI AND CO. V. A.A.R. FARM [REFERRED TO]
HUBERT JOHN AMIES V. JAL P. VIRJI [REFERRED TO]
PEERMOHAMED V. DALOORAM [REFERRED TO]
MEENAL V. GOVINDASWAMI NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
M. & S.M. RLY.CO. LTD. V. SUBBARAO [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDASWAMI PILLAI V. RAMASWAMI AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU V. MOHAMED GHANI [REFERRED TO]
VENKATACHALAM PILLAI V. RAJABALLI M. SAJUN [REFERRED TO]
MACKELLOP V. NOORBHOY AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
AGHA MIRZA NASARALI KHOYEE & CO. V. GORDON WOODROFFE & CO. (MADRAS) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BANSILAL RAMRATAN V. RAMCHAND TOLARAM [REFERRED TO]
DR. BARETTO V. T.R. PRUCE [REFERRED TO]
NAGARDAS V. VEL MOHAMED [REFERRED TO]
CHANDMUL MULCHAND VS. SAND CNORDLINGER [REFERRED TO]
K S DORAISWAMI NADAR VS. SIVANUPANDIA NADAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition which is sought to be filed against the decree and Judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in S. C. S. No. 504 of 1953.

(2.) The facts are: On 27-10-1949 the plaintiff, "a merchant at Tuticorin, placed a telegraphic order with the defendants' firm at Kanpur for one wagon of "dry peas dhall superior without broken or dankie". The first defendant accepted the order and contracted to supply the goods specified. On 7-11-1949 the plaintiff remitted a sum of Rs. 1000 through the Central Bank of India to the defendants as advance of the sale price of the contracted goods. On the goods arriving at Tuticorin the plaintiff inspected the goods and found them to be Inferior, broken and dankie mixed with husk. Thereupon the plaintiff called in Sri Subbier, P. W. 2, the defendants' Tuticorin representative, and he inspected the goods and satisfied himself that the complaint of the plaintiff was well founded. The plaintiff refused to accept the delivery of the goods and telegraphed his refusal and demanded return of the advance amount of Rs. 1000.

(3.) The reply of the defendants was two-fold, viz., that there was no breach of contract because the defendants wired to the plaintiff under Ex. A.5 that they had

Click here to view full judgment.

BEHARILAL BALDEOPRASAD FIRM OF MERCHANTS Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address