GADRE MOTORS Vs. RADHAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision by a defendant against whom a decree for Rs. 670 with costs was passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class I, Amravati, empowered under section 18 of the Central Provinces Courts Act, in Civil Suit No. 89 of 1952.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of the application for revision are as follows :- THE defendant is a sub-dealer at Amravati of the dealer in Ford cars at Nagpur. On 18th July, 1951, the plaintiff placed an order for a new Fordson 10 H.P. Van with the defendant at Amravati. THE delivery of the van, it was agreed, was to be given at Bombay where the amount mentioned in the order form (Exhibit D-2) was to be paid against delivery. THE plaintiff was to take delivery of the van without its being painted and it was agreed that he would get it painted, according to his choice, at Bombay. Exhibit D-2, which embodies the contract between the parties indicates that the delivery price at Bombay was ... Rs. 9,775 to which was added the price of ... an extra passenger seat. ... Rs. 75 and sales tax (M.P.) ... Rs. 657 ----------- ... Total Rs. 10,507 and from this amount the defendant was allowed a rebate of Rs. 782, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 9,425. THE contract was governed by a number of terms on the reverse of the contract form, reference to which will be hereafter made.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant urged that this was not a mistake of fact at all but that if the plaintiff had paid the sales tax, he paid it under a mistaken notion as to his legal rights since the law was on that date uncertain and was only settled later on by the decisions of this Court, and that of the Supreme Court in India in the Bengal Immunity case ([1955] 6 S.T.C. 446). He alternatively argued that in fact there was no mistake either of law or of fact. The price agreed was one and indivisible for supply of the car. Sales tax was only incidentally taken into account in arriving at it. But the agreement was to pay the final amount which must be paid in fulfilment of the contract. He also urged that the defendant had actually paid the sales tax to Government and it was very hard that he should be asked to refund it to the plaintiff.