MURALIDHAR CHATTERJEE Vs. INTERNATIONAL FILM COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an important question of commercial law under the Indian Contract Act. It is brought by the plaintiff, who carries on business from Calcutta as a distributor of cinema films. The defendants are a limited company who import such films into India. The contract between the parties was expressed in a letter dated May 8, 1936, sent by the defendants to the plaintiff, under which the plaintiff was to maintain at his own cost the defendants' office in Calcutta and handle their films in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Assam and Burma in conjunction with the defendants' head office at Cawnpore. The main stipulation was in the following terms :

(2.) THAT we shall deliver you a brand new positive print of each picture approximately at the average of one picture a month and we shall pay for all the royalties to the producers for the exploitation of the pictures and in consideration of this, you will pay us a sum of Rs. 1,750 towards the cost of each print supplied to you. Such payments to be made to us on demands and the prints to be delivered to you within four to five weeks from the date of the payment. The exact price of the print to be adjusted on the delivery of the print and to be reckoned by adding the actual duty as would be payable on the footage together with the costs of the positive print and other incidental charges (shippers, freights, etc.).

(3.) MEANWHILE on November 7, 1936, the plaintiff had likewise paid Rs. 2,000 on account of the sum due or to become due for Annie Laurie under the contract; but this film had not been delivered by the defendants when on December 1, 1936, the plaintiff wrote to the defendants making various complaints of delay and breach of contract; and saying that in the circumstances which have happened we find you have no bona fide intention of carrying out the contract and we decline to have any business dealings with you. This letter intimated a claim by the plaintiff for refund of the sum of Rs. 4,000 already paid, for Rs. 908-13-0 expenses incurred, and for Rs. 5,000 damages. The defendants by letter of December 3 denied that they had committed any breach. The plaintiff on December 12 by letter and telegram, adhered to his letter of December 1 and refused to act as defendants' agent any further. The defendants, on December14. denied the plaintiff's allegations of breach of contract and refused his claims for refund and damages; finally, by letter of January 21, 1937, they accepted the plaintiff's repudiation of the contract and said that they were taking the organisation of the contract territories under their own control and would claim against the plaintiff for all losses.