9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of Divisional Superintendent to contract on behalf of the Railway Administration. 2. Compliance with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. 3. Waiver of time stipulation in the contract. 4. Proof of ruling market rate on the date of breach. 5. Entitlement to compensation for breach of contract. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority of Divisional Superintendent to contract on behalf of the Railway Administration: The appellant claimed that the Divisional Superintendent had the authority to enter into contracts for the purchase of food grains. The trial court held that the Divisional Superintendent was authorized to enter into such contracts, relying on the evidence of Ribbins, Grain Supply Officer and Personal Assistant to the Divisional Superintendent. The High Court disagreed, holding that the authority under Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, to execute the contract could only be granted by the Governor-General by rules expressly promulgated or by formal notifications. The Supreme Court, however, held that special authority might be validly given in respect of a particular contract or contracts by the Governor to an officer other than the officer notified under the rules made under Section 175(3). The evidence established that the Divisional Superintendent was specially authorized to enter into these contracts for the purchase of food grains. 2. Compliance with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935: Section 175(3) required that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation or of a Province shall be expressed to be made by the Governor-General or by the Governor of the Province and executed on behalf of the Governor-General or Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorize. The contracts in question were not expressed to be made by the Governor-General and were not executed on behalf of the Governor-General. The Supreme Court held that the provision was mandatory and the contracts not executed in the prescribed manner were not binding on the Government of India. 3. Waiver of time stipulation in the contract: The finding that the Railway Administration had waived the stipulation as to the performance of the contracts within the time prescribed, though time was under the agreement of the essence, was not challenged before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Union of India. The Divisional Superintendent's telegraphic intimation dated September 28, 1943, that the food grains not dispatched before October 1, 1943, would not be accepted, constituted a breach of the contract. 4. Proof of ruling market rate on the date of breach: The appellant claimed compensation for the difference between the contract price and the price realized by the sale of the food grains. The High Court held that the appellant had failed to prove the ruling market rate on October 1, 1943, for the commodities in question. The trial judge relied on a control price list, which was a notification relating to the controlled rates in operation in the district of Arrah. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that there was a lack of evidence on the ruling market rate on October 1, 1943. 5. Entitlement to compensation for breach of contract: The appellant sought compensation for the difference between the contract price and the price realized by the sale of the food grains. The High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to a decree for compensation because he had failed to prove the ruling market rate on the date of breach. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the appellant's case suffered from a complete lack of evidence as to the ruling rates of the food grains on October 1, 1943. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
