REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Khemchand Pemchand Appellant

V/S

Dalhousie Jute Company Ltd. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SCOTT V/S. AVERY [REFERRED TO]
SPURRIER V/S. G.F. LA CLOCHE [REFERRED TO]
HUMBLE V/S. HUNTER [REFERRED TO]
DRUGHORN (E) LTD. V/S. REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET TRANS -ATLANTIC [REFERRED TO]
JUREIDINI V/S. NATIONAL BRITISH AND IRISH MILLERS INSURANCE CO. [REFERRED TO]
WOODALL V/S. PEARL [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD. V/S. JAMES MCKELVIE AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
BASMA V/S. WEEKS [REFERRED TO]
CIPRIANI V/S. BURNETT [REFERRED TO]
PINNOCK BROTHERS V/S. LEWIS AND PEAT LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HASMATULLA V/S. HARI MOHAN SARMA [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM ABU AHMAD KHAN GHAZNAVI V/S. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA V/S. ABEDA KHATUN SAHEBANI [REFERRED TO]
TOLLER V/S. LAW ACCIDENT [REFERRED TO]
GORDHANDAS NATHALAL V/S. GORIO LTD. [REFERRED TO]
A M MAIR AND CO VS. GORDHANDAS SAGARMULL [REFERRED TO]
BISWAMBHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SITAJI VS. BIJENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
ANDERSON WRIGHT LIMITED VS. MORAN AND CO [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNA SIVADUTTA RAI VS. TAYEBALLI DAWOODBHAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. LAKSHMI NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOUJI LAL SHAW [REFERRED TO]
BISHNU PUTEL VS. BAJRA PUTEL [REFERRED TO]
BHAGABAN DAS MAHESRI VS. PROSANNA DEV RAIKOT [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS VS. THAKURJI [REFERRED TO]
JATINDRA MOHAN CHAKRAVARTI VS. BIJOY CHAND MAHATAB [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Mukharji J. whereby the Plaintiff's suit was decreed for the sum of Rs. 44 224 with costs.

(2.) The Plaintiff is the Respondent in this appeal and the Defendant is the Appellant. The Respondent instituted the suit against the Appellant and claimed damages, compensation for storage of jute and costs. In short the Respondent's suit is on these allegations: Upon terms and conditions of two several contracts evidenced in writing by two separate brokers' notes both dated December 6, 1948, and respectively numbered B4319 and B4320, the Plaintiff bought from the Defendant 9751 mds. 20 seers and 1304 mds. 20 seers of jute respectively. Such purchases were made at Calcutta and Messrs. W.F. Ducat & Co. were the brokers. On or about the said date the said brokers disclosed to the Plaintiff that the Appellant was the seller, and disclosed to the Defendant that the Respondent was the buyer. The Appellant on January 5, 1949, tendered to the Respondent at its jute mill, situated at Dalhousie Jute Mill Company, 11,056 mds. of jute. Upon inspection and examination the Respondent found that such jute was not and no portion of it was in terms of either of the contracts, and the Respondent rejected the said jute as it was entitled to reject. The Respondent stored the said jute so rejected in godowns and claimed compensation at the rate of two annas per maund per month from January 5, 1949, until judgment or removal of the said goods by the Defendant. The Respondent claimed loss and damages for breach of contract.

(3.) The Appellant in the written statement denied the claim of the Respondent and the defences will really appear from the issues raised at the trial. The issues were as follows:

Click here to view full judgment.

KHEMCHAND PEMCHAND Vs. DALHOUSIE JUTE COMPANY LTD.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address