Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Union of India in Contractual Dispute Over Steel Supply. The court found that the suit was not barred under the Defence of India Act and that the Union of India was liable for the price of goods supplied.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a contractual relationship between the Union of India and J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Company regarding the supply of steel for gas plants. The Union of India supplied steel, but only part was used for its intended purpose. The remaining steel was to be delivered to the U.P. Registered Stock Holders Association, but due to transport issues, it was redirected to G. Brothers. Despite the delivery, the price remained unpaid, prompting the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the Kanpur Controller had assumed liability for the payment. The Union of India contended that the suit was barred under Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act, which the High Court rejected, affirming that the suit was for recovery of price, not damages. The High Court also found that the correspondence between the parties constituted a valid agreement, despite non-compliance with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the suit was not barred and that the Union of India had benefited from the transaction, thus was liable under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Recovery of Price - Suit for recovery of price of goods supplied - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 70 - The court held that the suit was not for damages or compensation as contemplated by Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act, and thus not barred. The plaintiff company was entitled to recover the price of goods supplied to G. Brothers, as the Union of India had enjoyed the benefit of the delivery (Paras 898-901).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the suit for recovery of the price of goods supplied was barred under Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act and whether the Union of India was liable to pay for the goods delivered to G. Brothers.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the suit was not barred and that the Union of India was liable to pay the price of the goods supplied to G. Brothers.

Law Points

  • Contractual liability
  • Government liability
  • Conditions for Section 70 applicability
  • Defence of India Act interpretation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1980 LawText (SC) (04) 23

Civil Appeal No. 1273/70

1980-04-29

KOSHAL, A.D., FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

1980 AIR 1330, 1980 SCR (3) 893, 1980 SCC (3) 469

P.P. Rao, Subodh Markendeya, R. Venkataramani, Miss A. Subhashini, Soli. J. Sorabjee, Rameshwar Nath

Union of India

J. K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Company Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for recovery of price of goods supplied.

Remedy Sought

Recovery of Rs. 46,652-14-6 with interest.

Filing Reason

Unpaid price for steel supplied to G. Brothers.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff; High Court upheld the decree.

Issues

Whether the suit was barred under Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act. Whether the Union of India was liable to pay for the goods delivered to G. Brothers.

Submissions/Arguments

The Union of India argued that the suit was barred under Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act. The plaintiff contended that the suit was for recovery of price, not damages, and that the Union of India had benefited from the transaction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the suit for recovery of price was not barred under Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act, and that the Union of India was liable under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act as it had enjoyed the benefit of the goods delivered.

Judgment Excerpts

The suit is not one for compensation or damages etc. as contemplated by Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act and hence is not barred by that section. Three conditions must be satisfied before Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act can be invoked.

Procedural History

The case originated from a suit filed by the plaintiff company for recovery of price against the Union of India, which was decreed by the trial court. The High Court upheld the decree on appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 70
  • Government of India Act, 1935: Section 175(3)
  • Defence of India Act: Section 17(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against Customs Collector's Orders on Coconut Oil Import. The court confirmed that the Collector's interpretation of the import policy was valid and that natural justice was observed in the proceedings.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Extension of Arbitral Tribunal Mandate in International Commercial Arbitration Involving Share Dispute and Insolvency Moratorium. The court extended the time for the arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Concili...