LAWS(CAL)-1960-5-17

MIRZA AKBAR KASINI Vs. UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

Decided On May 16, 1960
MIRZA AKBAR KASINI Appellant
V/S
UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted this suit with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for a decree for Rs. 6,07,346/-. The plaintiff's claim arises out of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants through defendant No. 2 in respect of supply of tea. There was an agreement in the month of December 1957. The quantity supplied under that agreement to the defendants had been paid for. In the month of March 1958 another agreement was entered into on behalf of the defendants through defendant No. 2. It was agreed that the defendants would accept and/or buy and/or purchase from the plaintiff 2,00 tons of tea. The goods were to be shipped from Calcutta during the months of May and June 1958. The plaintiff was to be paid by means of letter of credit at Calcutta. The other terms of the agreement contained, inter alia, a clause that no further order shall be placed in India by the defendant who would give to the plaintiff the first refusal of their future requirements a month before the expiry of the contract, subject to the fixation of prices prevailing at the time.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that the said term was the basis of the agreement and was entered into for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to buy tea in the local market in India without competition from others in order to supply to the defendants at the contracted rate. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff supplied 600 tons of tea. The defendants paid for the same.

(3.) In the month of June/July 1958 the time for shipment was extended upto August 31, 1958. The plaintiff's case is that in breach of the agreement on July 29, 1958 the defendants placed order with Messrs. Standard Stores Agency (Private) Ltd. of Calcutta for the supply of 4,500 tons of tea. The said order according to the plaintiff was placed during the tenure of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants without giving the plaintiff the first refusal for the future requirement of the defendants.