1976 (10) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... delivered to the defendant appellant pursuant to several orders from time to time goods described as Mac Intyre Sleeves and other goods. The respondent alleged in the plaint that the appellant wrongfully purported to reject the Mac Intyre Sleeves supplied by the respondent. The respondent further alleged that the rejection was unlawful inasmuch as the rejection was after lapse of reasonable time. The respondent claimed the sum mentioned in the plaint as reasonable price of the goods. The alternative case of the respondent is that the plaintiff respondent was entitled to the sum for supply of Mac Intyre Sleeves because the same were not supplied gratuitously. The appellant denied in the written statement that there was any enforceab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are pleaded in the plaint that a cause. of action is constituted under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. If any plaintiff pleads the three ingredients and proves the three features the defendant is then bound to make compensation- in respect of or to restore the things so done or delivered. The allegation in the plaint in the present case was as follows. In any event the plaintiff is entitled to the said sum of ₹ 26,248-7-0, and ₹ 50,442-11-0 with interest for the said Mac Intyre Sleeves, Copper Strips and Stay Shackles for the same were not supplied gratuitiously . The plaint lacked the two other essential features to constitute a cause of action under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. These were that the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ract Act would be irrelevant. The judgment of the Division Bench is confused. The Division Bench treated the case of the respondent to be a claim for damages for wrongful rejection . Under the Sale of Goods Act when there is any enforceable contract the seller may claim for price of goods sold or damages for non acceptance. The present case could not be supported on the footing of any enforceable contract giving rise to damages for non-acceptance or wrongful rejection. The reasoning of the Division Bench in allowing the claim is erroneous. The evidence in the present case as found by the trial court is that the signatures of Rodericks and Francis on the challans indicate acceptance of the goods, and, ,therefore, the rejection is wro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X