9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against a decision of the High Court at Allahabad in a suit for breach of contract. - Interpretation of the agreement between the parties. - Application of the doctrine of frustration of contract under sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. - Examination of the circumstances leading to the alleged breach of contract. - Comparison with a previous case regarding contract performance. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a High Court decision regarding a breach of contract suit. The appellant sought damages from the respondent-firm for failing to deliver 61 bales of cloth as per the agreement. The main issue was whether the contract was frustrated by circumstances beyond the respondent's control. The High Court upheld the frustration plea, but the Supreme Court disagreed, focusing on the interpretation of the agreement and the application of the doctrine of frustration. The Court referred to sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which state that contingent contracts become void if the event becomes impossible, and agreements to do impossible acts are void. The Court analyzed the agreement language and the circumstances, emphasizing that frustration cannot apply when non-performance is due to the defendant's default. The High Court's interpretation of the agreement was challenged, as it was believed to be based on an abstract legal doctrine rather than the actual facts. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that the contract was discharged due to supervening impossibility. It cited a previous case to support its stance that the agreement did not make the delivery contingent on goods being supplied to the respondent by the Mills. The Court highlighted that the agreement's language indicated a process of delivery and did not contemplate the goods not being supplied at all. The Court also noted that the respondent had not sold the cloth to another party and had the ability to supply the 61 bales at the time of the alleged breach. The Court further analyzed the evidence presented by the respondent regarding the Mills' practice of fulfilling orders. It was noted that there was no evidence to support the claim that it was impossible to supply the goods within the agreed period. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of frustration requires specific conditions to be met, and in this case, the circumstances did not warrant its application. The Court referred to relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to support its decision. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the trial court's decree in favor of the appellant, who was also awarded costs throughout.
|
