KESSORAM PODDAR AND CO Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) agreed upon and that these tick marks indicated that he had bought the goods so ticked. Thereafter, when he wanted delivery of the goods purchased, he would send a delivery order through his office requiring the seller to deliver the goods at the Narcaldanga depot or at such other place as might be specified in the order, but owing to the congested state of the depots months often elapsed before such delivery orders were issued. He would also purchase goods by what was popularly known as a "commandeering" order. It appears that under the rules framed under the Defence of India Act, certain classes of goods such as corrugated iron sheets, galvanized plates, barbed wire and the like, could not be sold by merchants except under license from Government and when a commandeering order was issued, the goods had to the delivered at such places as were specified therein. Such an order could only be signed by the Controller of Munitions himself.

(2.) In such cases the price of such goods was agreed upon but where there was a dispute, the price was ultimately settled by reference to arbitration. The restrictions under these rules were withdrawn in December 1918. Waite had authority to buy both for stock and indent and could buy ahead for stock on the basis of the previous three months requirements. In the exercise of these powers the plaintiff firm says that on the four dates mentioned above, he purchased the goods from it in the manner indicated. In some cases, delivery orders were issued and the goods were delivered and paid for, but in the case of the rest, no delivery orders were issued though the plaintiff firm repeatedly asked for them and it was always ready and willing, to deliver the goods. Subsequent to the 26 August, it is said, that there Were further purchases by Waite from the plaintiff firm and it is also said that in September 1918, for instance, some scrap iron was bought and paid for.

(3.) The Armistice was signed in November 1918 and on 13 December 1918 Mr. Keatinge Controller of Hardware, Metals and Implements, wrote to the plaintiff firm cancelling an order for seven items placed with them by Waite on 16 August 1918. The plaintiff firm replied on the 18 denying the Controller's right to cancel the, order and giving reasons which the Controller declined in his letter to accept. To this the plaintiff firm replied on 3 January 1919: The order was a contract and therefore delivery or non-delivery thereunder was to be regulated by the provisions of the law.