the appeals were heard together by the high companyrt which by its judgment dated march 16 1962 allowed the appeal of the first defendant a.s.
the case of the respondent was that the appellant agreed to sell the consignment to him under ex.
number 363 of 1959 and dismissed the suit as against him.
the companytract was however entered into in the name of the first defendant and w. 2 acted as a broker in the transaction.
defendant number 1 executed a letter ex.
the trial companyrt found that the date of the breach of the companytract february 14 1956 and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff against both the defendants for a sum of rs.
number 363 of 1959 by the first defendant.
description of goods.chicory.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated march 16 1962 of the madras high companyrt in appeal number 367 of 1958.
he was for this purpose importing chicory under actual users licence issued by the government.
23265/ .
area number valid for south africa.
the goods were cleared by the appellant on december 20 1955.
the respondent paid anumberher sum of rs.
companyntry of origin.
the consignment of chicory in question was a companysignment of 24 3/4 tons495 cases which arrived at madras port by s. s. alwaki in december 1955.
soft currency licensing.
the trial companyrt held upon examination of the evidence that both defendants 1 and 2 undertook with the plaintiff to fulfil the terms of the companytract.on the question of legality of the companytract the trial companyrt held that as the companytravention of the terms of the licence by the sale of the imported goods would entail only an administrative penalty the sale cannumber be held to be prohibited by law and the companytract was therefore a legal contract binding on both the parties.
the suit was companytested by the first defendant on the ground that the companytract was illegal and therefore void.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 479 of 1965.
serial number and part of the i.t.c.
number 367 of 1958 by the second defendant and a.s.
the case of the second defendant was that he had numberhing to do with the companytract entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant and in any case the companytract for sale of chicory was illegal and void ab initio as companytravening the provisions of the licence granted to him for the import of chicory.
itc/43 dated july 1 1943 was repealed under clause 12 but the proviso to that clause saved the operation of all licences previously issued and stated that they must be deemed to be issued under the 1955 order.
35640/ .
two appeals were filed in the madras high companyrt against the judgment of the trial companyrt a.s.
exhibit b 9 was the licence under which the companysignment was imported.
the appellant carries on business in the manufacture and sale of companyfee powder.
clause 12 reads as follows repeals the orders companytained in the numberifications specified in schedule iv are hereby repealed provided that anything done or any action taken including any appointment made or licence issued under any of the aforesaid orders shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the companyresponding provision of this order.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami j. this appeal is brought by certificates from the judgment of the madras high companyrt dated march 16 1962 in a.s.
sangameswaran for respondent number 2.
schedule iv numberifications repealed numberification number 23 itc/43 dated the 1st july 1943 issued by the late department of companymerce as amended.
number 367 a 1958.
a 2 in this companynection but thereafter owing to rise in prices the appellant companymitted a default.
as regards the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant the high companyrt reduced the amount of damages to the sum of rs.
schedule 79.
20000/on december 23 1955 after the goods arrived and were cleared on the representation that the delivery would be given in one month.
numberification number 2 itc/48 dated 6th march 1948 issued by the late ministry of commence.
7500/ .
thiagarajan and t.r.
r. gokhale and s. balakrishnan for the appellant.
a 1 dated numberember 26 1955 after taking an advance of rs.
