9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for damages for breach of contract, Application of Scrap Control Order to sales for export, Quantum of damages calculation, Knowledge of the respondent regarding export purpose, Compensation under Section 73 of the Contract Act. Analysis: The appellant sued the respondent for damages due to breach of contract for the supply of scrap iron. The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, but the High Court reversed the decision, stating the appellant suffered no damages as the controlled price of scrap iron remained the same. The appeal reached the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The appellant argued that the Scrap Control Order did not apply to sales for export. However, the Court found no exclusion in the relevant rules indicating such an exemption. The controlled price was applicable irrespective of the purpose of sale, including exports. Regarding the quantum of damages, the appellant claimed the difference between the price paid by the vendees and the price he would have paid to the respondent. However, the Court noted that without informing the respondent of the export purpose, damages could not be calculated on that basis. The Court analyzed the knowledge of the respondent regarding the export purpose. It was established that the respondent did not have prior knowledge of the export intention at the time of contract formation, thereby negating liability for damages. Under Section 73 of the Contract Act, compensation is awarded for direct losses. As the appellant did not suffer a direct loss due to the breach, the claim for damages was dismissed. The Court cited Illustration (k) of Section 73 to support the decision. Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the appellant did not incur recoverable damages. The Court concluded that the appeal failed, and it was dismissed with costs, without delving into the completion of the contract or the alleged breach by the appellant.
|
