9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Privity of Contract 2. Amendment of Written Statement and Additional Evidence 3. Implied Contract 4. Liability for Payment Detailed Analysis 1. Privity of Contract The primary issue was whether there was a privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, supplied 630 bags of tobacco to the defendants, a partnership business. The defendants argued that there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiff, claiming they had placed the order with Shri Abdul Rahim Nabisaheb Bagwan and not directly with the plaintiff. The Trial Court found that the goods were sold to the defendants by the plaintiff through Rahim, who acted as the defendants' agent, establishing privity of contract. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that a new implied contract came into existence by the conduct of the parties, as the goods were supplied by the plaintiff on its own account and accepted by the defendants, making them liable to pay the price of the goods. 2. Amendment of Written Statement and Additional Evidence The defendants sought to amend their written statement and adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They filed applications in the High Court for these purposes. The High Court initially set aside the Trial Court's judgment and remitted the case back for retrial, allowing the plaintiff to adduce further evidence. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the High Court to dispose of the defendants' applications for amendment and additional evidence and then decide the appeal based on the evidence already presented in the Trial Court. The High Court ultimately declined the defendants' requests, stating that the amendment would have completely changed the nature of their original defense, introducing an entirely new plea not previously taken up. 3. Implied Contract The High Court found that an implied contract was formed between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants had originally placed orders with Rahim, but the goods were supplied by the plaintiff on its own account and accepted by the defendants. The High Court noted that the defendants' vague claim of having paid Rahim was unsubstantiated, and there was no evidence showing that Rahim had paid the plaintiff the balance of the price of the goods. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding, stating that the conduct of the parties indicated an implied contract, as the defendants accepted the goods and made part payments to the plaintiff, thereby incurring liability for the balance. 4. Liability for Payment The defendants were found liable to pay the balance of the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had initially claimed Rs. 90,000, including interest, for the balance of the price of the goods. The defendants had made partial payments through cheques and cash, but a balance remained unpaid. The High Court and the Supreme Court both found that the defendants were liable to pay this balance to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the defendants were liable to pay the balance of the price directly to the plaintiff. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that an implied contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendants, making the defendants liable to pay the balance of the price of the goods supplied. The defendants' applications for amendment of their written statement and additional evidence were rightly rejected by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
