SHANTILAL CHUNILAL Vs. VERSATILE TRADERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania dated January 25, 1945.

(2.) THE matter arises out of two contracts for the sale of yarn dated respectively April 22 and 24, 1943. In the trial Court a number of points were taken, but these have dropped out or have been given up, leaving two main issues which we have to consider. THE issue which comes first is with regard to the validity of the contract. On that issue the appellant in this Court succeeded in the Court below. THE other issue concerns the quantum of damages for the breach of contract, and on that issue the respondents succeeded and the appellant filed this appeal. THEreupon the respondents cross-appealed on the issue of validity. THE cross-appeal has been argued first in this Court, since, if it succeeds, the appeal with regard to the quantum of damages would not arise.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further it is necessary to mention certain dates and facts, The two contracts for the sale by the appellant to the respondents were each for 5,000 Ibs. of cotton yarn and are dated April 22 and 24, 1943. The original dates for delivery were respectively in June and in May of that year. But it is common ground that these dates were extended by mutual agreement to December 22, 1943, and that that is the date in each case on which a breach of contract took place. The contracts are in the name of the appellant and are his personal contracts, although in fact he was a partner in a firm of wholesale and retail cotton merchants called the Ruby Thread Company, the only other partner in that firm being Shridhar Balkrishna Antarkar. On August 21, 1942, an application for a license under the Notification of July 31, 1942, was made by " Shridhar Balkrishna Antarkar, partner Ruby Thread Co. " and on November 1, 1942, a license was in fact granted by the Yarn Commissioner for the Province of Bombay, the licensee being Shridhar Balkrishna Antarkar without the qualification of his being a partner in the firm of Ruby Thread Co. Accordingly on November 23, 1942, a letter was written to the Commissioner which said: We hereby wish to point out that the licenses in question were required to be brought out in the name of this firm i. e. ' The Ruby Thread Co. ', and not in the individual name of the undersigned. " " We shall therefore thank you to make the necessary amendment in your registers and oblige.