9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Government had undertaken to maintain the horses for which the grain was supplied. 2. Whether Major Somerville had legal authority on behalf of the Secretary of State to enter into the contract in question. 3. If the Government is found liable for maintaining the horses but Major Somerville lacked authority, whether the Government is equitably bound to pay compensation for the grain supplied. 4. Whether the accounts for the supplies made in June, July, and August 1920, for which payments had already been made, can be reopened based on admissions made by the plaintiff in a criminal case. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Government's Responsibility for Maintaining Horses The court examined the historical context of the silladar system, where soldiers maintained their own horses. However, it was found that during and after the Great War, the system was modified, and the responsibility for maintaining horses was transferred to the Government. The evidence showed that horses were supplied and maintained by the Officer Commanding, and the costs were deducted from the soldiers' salaries. The court concluded that the Government had undertaken the responsibility for maintaining the horses at the time the contract was executed. Issue 2: Major Somerville's Authority to Enter into the Contract The court referred to Section 2 of the East India Contracts Act, which mandates that contracts on behalf of the Secretary of State must be executed by authorized persons. The Government of India's resolution did not list the Officer Commanding a depot as an authorized person to enter into such contracts. Therefore, Major Somerville lacked the legal authority to bind the Secretary of State, rendering the contract ultra vires and unenforceable against the Government. Issue 3: Equitable Compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act Despite the contract being unenforceable, the court considered whether the Government was equitably bound to compensate for the grain supplied. Section 70 of the Contract Act stipulates that if a person lawfully delivers something to another, not intending it to be gratuitous, and the other enjoys its benefit, compensation must be made. The court held that this section applied and that the Government must compensate the plaintiffs for the grain supplied, as it was consumed by the horses maintained by the Government. Issue 4: Reopening Accounts for June, July, and August 1920 The Government sought to reopen the accounts based on admissions made by the plaintiffs in a criminal case. The court found that the prosecution was baseless and intended to harass the plaintiffs. Consequently, the admissions made under such circumstances were not binding. Moreover, since the plaintiffs were to be compensated at market rates, which were higher than the agreed rates, this point was deemed irrelevant. Conclusion: The court affirmed the decree against the Secretary of State, requiring compensation for the grain supplied under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The appeal by the Secretary of State was dismissed with costs. The decree against the Officer Commanding V (K.E.O.) Probyn's Horse was set aside, and his appeal was accepted without costs. The plaintiffs' cross-objections for interest were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs. Separate Judgments: Agha Haider, J., concurred with the judgment. This summary encapsulates the core legal issues and the court's detailed reasoning, preserving key legal terminology and significant phrases from the original judgment.
|
