K.R. SHAH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DHAMTARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from a suit for recovery of damages for breach of a contract. The plaintiff's case was that by a memo dated 11 April 1958, the Municipal Committee, Dhamtari (defendant) invited tenders for the supply of certain electrical goods. The plaintiff submitted his quotation on 19 April 1958. The tender was accepted by the defendant per memo dated 28 April 1958. A part of the price was paid in advance. On 29 May 1958, the plaintiff supplied the goods but the defendant refused to accept delivery and on 1 July 1958, the defendant finally refused to accept the goods. For this breach of the contract the plaintiff claimed Rs. 1952. 75 P. as damages.

(2.) THE suit was resisted, infer alia, on the grounds that the Municipal Committee, Dhamtari, had been suspended by the Government under section 53 -A of the Municipalities Act on grounds of corruption, nepotism and in -competency and a petition for mandamus filed by the President of the Municipal Committee had been dismissed by the High Court and eventually by the Supreme Court and that the contract was fraudulent, illegal and void and the defendant Municipal Committee was not bound by it. It was further alleged that the plaintiff charged approximately thrice than the actual market price of the articles to be supplied. The contract was hard and unconscionable and hence could not be given effect to. The advance was given to the plaintiff in contravention of the financial Rules. The plaintiff did not suffer or sustain any damages.

(3.) THE first appellate Court has held that the President of the Municipal Committee had authority and power to enter into the contract that the defendant Committee could not prove that the plaintiff and the President of the Committee had entered into a conspiracy and defrauded the Municipal Committee and that the breach of the contract was committed by the Municipal Committee. But it dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff could not prove the quantum of damages. The learned Judge of the appellate Court has observed that the plaintiff adduced no evidence to show that he suffered any loss by selling the goods which were not accepted by the Municipal Committee. The plaintiff did not produce account books, so that it could not be ruled out that he sold the goods at a profit.