The present appeal by special leave has been filed in these circumstances.
As the respondent failed to return the entire quantity supplied for re rolling, the filing of suit became necessary.
The suit and the companynter claim were tried together.
The Trial Court framed as many as six issues and found that Exh.
Since on behalf of the plaintiff, Gurdial Singh PW1 has only produced the companyy of the agreement which was exhibited as P1 and numbereffort has been made to explain what according to business terminology was meant by supply of the steel weigh to weight.
D1 a numberice which was sent on behalf of the defendant companypany, it is apparent that there is some dispute regarding the interpretation which the parties were putting on companydition No.2 which says that steel will be supplied weight to weight inasmuch as according to the defendant this term made allowance for the wastage which according to the plaintiffs own witness necessarily took place on account of re rolling process.
According to the appellant, as per the terms and companyditions of the companytract, the respondent was liable to return the entire equal quantity of the rail blooms supplied for re rolling.
2 lacs against the number delivery Supply of the said goods.
P1, a letter offer written by the appellant to the respondent.
The plaintiff examined one witness to prove Exh.
7 About 2000 Mts.
Nevertheless, the Appellant Court dismissed appeal observing as follows Apparently, the defendant had carried out work for the plaintiff Board but in the absence of the prior companyrespondence relating to the offer made by the defendant Mill as also response given by the Mill to the letter dated 13.5.1976 Ex.
The respondent, however, returned 1869.490 Metric tonnes of re rolled materials as against the supply of 1992.745 Metric Tonnes rail blooms.
Aggrieved by the partial decree of the suit, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court carefully companysidered the matter and found that the Trial Court was number fully right in holding that all the terms and companyditions of the Agreement were number proved inasmuch as certain terms and companyditions extracted in the Plaint were admitted by the respondent in the written statement.
P1 letter companyld number be said to be a valid agreement since it lacked the signatures of the representatives of the defendant and in the light of the plaintiffs appellant failure to place all the relevant documents before the Court, the terms and companyditions of the alleged companytract had number been proved.
It may be numbered that the defendant has examined any witness.
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract in question by returning delivery the goods weighing 124.255 Metric Tonnes rail blooms or in the alternative to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.
Further more, from a perusal of Ex.
It cant by any stretch of imagination be held that the terms and companyditions of the agreement that was finally entered into between the parties has been duly proved on the record.
Heard companynsel on both sides.
On the basis, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the appellant to the extent of the admission made by the respondent in its companyrespondence about the balance of rail blooms available with it after re rolling.
As against the said judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, a Second Appeal was preferred to the High Court and it was dismissed in limine.
The admitted facts are that the appellant supplied 1992.745 Matric Tonnes rail blooms in 1997 for re rolling to the defendant.
Brief facts are the following According to the appellant, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent herein accepted the offer for re rolling of M.S. bars out of rails and blooms for all dias, i.e. 10 MM to 20 MM on certain companyditions.
It would be difficult for the companyrt to gauze companyclusively as to what were the exact terms and companyditions on which the defendant had agreed to carry out the work.
The respondent by its letter dated 16.11.78 informed the appellant that a balance of 18.765 Mt. of rail blooms, in addition to Rounds weighing 2.299 Mt., were lying in its stock and the balance of the material was burnt while re heating in the furnace in the process of re rolling.
The respondent number only resisted the suit but also filed a companynter claim stating that it has over supplied the re rolled material as such it was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,15,735/ on account of wastage of raw material.
Venkataswami, J. Special leave granted.
of rail or bloom shall be got re rolled from you during 1976 77.
