But the trial companyrt also held that the wordings of the rejection memos negatived any case of enjoyment of benefit.
In view of the fact that parties went to trial and issues were raised on claims under section 70 of the Indian Con tract Act and the litigation went through the companyrse of trial and appeal we do number desire to number suit the respondent at this stage.
The allegation in the plaint in the present case was as follows.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 18 5 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
The respondent further alleged that the rejection was unlawful inasmuch as the rejection was after lapse of reasonable time.
The appellant pleaded to.
The Division Bench on appeal held that the goods were accepted by the appellant.
In any event the plaintiff is entitled to the said sum of Rs.
The respondent therefore sought to make the appellant liable to companypensate the respondent by reason of provisions companytained in section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.
The trial companyrt held that the goods were number properly rejected.
The respond ents case in short is that the respondent delivered to the defendant appellant pursuant to several orders from time to time goods described as Mac Intyre Sleeves and other goods.
At the trial the respondent found that the claim for the sum of money as price of goods companyld number be sustained be cause of lack of enforceability of companytract.
the alternative case of the respondent by alleging that the goods were lawfully rejected because the goods were found number to be of the companyrect description and quality.
The findings are inconsistent.
The respondent claimed the sum mentioned in the plaint as reasonable price of the goods.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
The trial companyrt also found that the respondent accepted the goods.
The judgment of the Division Bench is company fused.
The trial companyrt should have decreed the suit.
The trial companyrt said that the documents show that the goods were number utilised or used by the appellant and the appellant disclaimed interest in the goods.
The appellant took the plea bar of the suit that there was numbercontract in companypliance with section 175 of the Gov ernment of India Act, 1935.
The Division Bench treated the case of the respond ent to be a claim for damages for wrongful rejection.
76,691 2 0 with interest or in the alternative Rs.
The respondent filed this suit against the appellant in the High Court at Calcutta and claimed Rs.
The appellant denied in the written statement that there was any enforceable companytract, and, therefore, the respondent was number entitled to sue for price of the goods delivered.
78,204 8 4.
The respondent alleged in the plaint that the appellant wrongfully purported to reject the Mac Intyre Sleeves supplied by the respondent.
The Court should number have allowed the respondent to go to trial in the present case with a Claim under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act in the absence of proper pleadings.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant further denied that the rejected goods were re tained after lapse of reasonable time without intimating the rejection.
The present case companyld number be supported on the footing of any enforceable companytract giving rise to damages for number acceptance or wrongful rejection.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated April 11, 1968 of the High Court at Calcutta.
26,248 7 0, and Rs.
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 number supplied gratu itously.
50,442 11 0 with interest for the said Mac Intyre Sleeves, Copper Strips and Stay Shackles for the same were number supplied gratuitiously.
Purushottam Chatterjee and Sukumar Ghose, for the respond ent.
1762 of 68.
183/56 .
L. Sanghi and Girish Chandra, for the Appellant.
When the trial companyrt found that the goods were accepted there companyld be numberquestion of restora tion.
