Case Note & Summary
The respondent, State of Goa through the Executive Engineer, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,71,873/- against the appellant, M/s. H. L. Nathurmal, for short supply of rails. The appellant had placed an order for 100 metric tonnes of rails at Rs.16,707/- per metric tonne and paid Rs.16,70,700/-. However, only 83.737 metric tonnes were supplied, leaving a shortfall of 16.263 metric tonnes. The appellant admitted short supply but disputed the measurement method. The trial court decreed the suit with interest at 10% per annum from 15-12-1987. The appellant appealed, arguing that the delivery challans conclusively showed the quantity and that no interest was demanded before suit. The High Court, after considering the evidence, found that the appellant failed to prove that the measurement was not as per the agreement. The court noted that the appellant did not lead any evidence to show that the weight was to be calculated differently. The court also held that interest was justified as the amount was due. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Supply of Goods - Short Supply - Recovery of Amount - The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,71,873/- for short supply of 16.263 metric tonnes of rails out of 100 metric tonnes ordered. The appellant disputed the manner of measurement but admitted short supply. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that the appellant failed to prove that the measurement was not as per agreement and upheld the decree. (Paras 2-5) B) Interest - Pre-suit Interest - No Demand - The appellant contended that no interest was demanded before suit. However, the court held that interest at 10% per annum from the date of payment (15-12-1987) was justified as the amount was due and payable. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is liable to pay the amount claimed by the respondent for short supply of rails and whether the interest awarded is justified.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Decree of trial court upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contract for supply of goods
- short supply
- recovery of amount
- interest
- burden of proof
- measurement of goods
