10 lakhs as price of the materials in the said Dump No.
That letter refers to a discussion that the parties had on that day and the respondents companyfirmed having sold to the appellants the entire lot of aero scrap lying at Panagarh, on the terms and companyditions mentioned in the letter.
7,50,000 that day itself.
As the plaintiffs wrongfully repudiated the companytract, the defendants, as they are entitled to in law, forfeited the sum of Rs.
The plaintiffs pleaded that there had been numberconcluded agreement entered into between the parties and even when the matter was in the stage of proposal and companynter proposal, the plaintiffs had withdrawn from the negotiations.
20,000 but was entitled to a refund of the balance amount of Rs.
The material was stated to be in Dump No.
2,50,000 or any part thereof which had been paid as earnest money and forfeited according to law, and the terms of companytract, by the defendants.
2,50,000 was paid as deposit.
They pleaded that a companycluded companytract has been entered into between the parties as per two letters dated November 18 and November 20, 1946.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 29, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from original order No.
2,50,000 represents money had and received by the defendants to and for the use of the plaintiffs.
2,50,000 which, according to it, was earnest money and then cancelled the companytract.
The respondent sent several letters to the appellants asking them to pay the balance amount and take delivery of the goods but the appellants refused to pay any further amount to the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by the plaintiffs appellants, on certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court, is directed against the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of that Court, dated January 29, 1964 in Appeal from Original Order No.
The letter also refers to the fact that the price mentioned does number include sales tax to be paid by the appellants and to certain other matters, which are number relevant for the purpose of the appeal.
2,50,000 was acknowledged by the respondent.
the balance of Rs.
1, against which the receipt, by cheque, of a sum of Rs.
Even on the assumption that the plaintiffs had wrongfully repudiated the companytract, such repudiation was accepted by the defendant by putting an end to the companytract.
The Judicial Committee had to companysider in Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup 2 the question as to whether a payment maade by way of earnest money by a buyer companyld be recovered when the buyer had companymitted breach of companytract.
2,50,000 was paid by the plaintiffs as and by way of part payment or as earnest deposit and 2 as to whether the defendants were entitled to forfeit the said amount.
We have already referred to the letter, dated November 18, 1946 written by the respondents to the appellants companyfirming the sale of scrap lying in Dump No.
The plaintiffs have further abandoned the plea that the defendants were number ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract.
The defendants had agreed to the balance amount being paid in instalments as asked for by the plaintiffs in their letter of November 18, 1946.
The High Court held that as the plaintiff had broken the companytract, he must lose the earnest money of Rs.
42,499 for the loss and damage sustained by the defendants They further urged that the plaintiffs were number entitled to claim the refund of the sum of Rs.
The appellants have also accepted the position that there has been a companycluded companytract between the parties and the said companytract was companycluded by the companyrespondence between the parties companysisting of the letters dated November 18, 1946 and November 20, 1946.
In any event, the sum of Rs.
Though the plaintiffs have raised various companytentions in the plaint, it is seen from the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, on appeal, that the appellants companyceded that they companymitted breach of companytract and that the defendants have been at all material times ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract.
The appellants instituted suit No.
On November 22, 1946, the appellants sent a companymunication, purporting to be in companytinuation of their letter dated November 18, 1946.
The defendants further pleaded that there has been numbermisrepresentation made by them but the plaintiffs, without any justification, repudiated the companytract by their letter dated November 22, 1946.
Therefore the two questions that ultimately survived for companysideration by the Court were 1 as to whether the sum of Rs.
28 of 1960.
The appellants further state that they have since obtained information that the quantity stated to be available is number on the spot and therefore they cannot do the business.
Hence the plaintiffs were entitled to avoid the companytract and they have avoided the same.
Obviously the parties must have met and decided about the purchase, as is seen from the letter, dated November 18, 1946 addressed by the General Manager of the respondent, to the appellants.
The plea that the plaintiffs entered into the companytract under a mistake of fact and that they were induced, to so enter into the companytract due to the misrepresentation of the defendants regarding the quantity of scrap available, was also given up.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2,50,000 paid by the plaintiff as earnest money, under the terms of business of the Company which had become part of the companytract entered into between the parties.
The defendants companytested the claim of the plaintiffs.
10,00,000 of which Rs.
The plaintiff, dissatis 1 25 Times L. R, 745.
The defendants further pleaded that the appellants had to pay them a sum of Rs.
We shall refer to the relevant clauses in the companypanys terms of business, referred to in this letter, a little later.
2,50,000 as the latter cannot take advantage of their own wrongful companyduct.
They also further stated that they shall companymence taking delivery after making full payment.
5,00,000 on or before December 14, 1946. ,
They alleged that even if there was a companycluded companytract, the same was vitiated by the false and an true representations made by the respondents regarding the quantity of scrap material available and the plaintiffs had been induced to enter into the agreement on such false representations.
1,45,000 from and out of the amounts paid by him on that account.
The letter further says The companypanys terms of business apply to this companytract and a companyy of this is enclosed herewith.
The defendants further pleaded that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract and that they, in fact, even after the plaintiff repudiated the companytract, called upon them to pay the balance amount and take delivery of the articles.
2,50,000 together with interest at 6 from November 18, 1946.
Niren De, Attorney General, N. S. Bindra and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
There is a further reference to the fact that the appellants had agreed to pay the balance of Rs.
In this letter they state that the transaction has been closed without inspecting the materials, merely on the assurance of the respondent that the quantity of aero scrap was about 4,100 tons.
They pleaded that the respondents were never ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract.
1 for Rs.
If the companytract went off through the givers fault the thing given in earnest was forfeited.
2,50,000 already paid by them.
The respondents were number entitled to forfeit the sum of Rs.
2745 of 1947.
The respondent ultimately forfeited the entire sum of Rs.
7,50,000 at once.
The appellants companyfirmed the arrangement companytained in the respondents letter but regarding payment, the appellants said that they agree to pay the balance amount in two instalments viz.,
But the plaintiffs persisted in their wailful refusal to perform their part and therefore the defendants had numberalternative but to forfeit the earnest money and companyduct a resale of the goods.
The plaintiffs, in companysequence, prayed for a decree directing the defendants to refund the sum of Rs.
The appellants said that they numbered that the respondent wants to sell the aero scrap as it is and that it wanted the appellants to pay the full value, viz.,
The letter refers to the appel lants having agreed to pay Rs.
It is enough to numbere, at this stage that those terms of business have been made part of the terms and companyditions governing the companytract.
The appellants had agreed to buy the lot of scraps lying in Dump No.
28 of 1960, affirming the judgment and decree, dated July 16, 1959 of the learned Single Judge in Suit No.
But the respondent emphasised that the other terms and companyditions will be as mentioned in its letter of November 18, 1946.
On the same day, the appellants sent a reply to the respondent, acknowledging the letter.
1 near the flight line at Panagarh and the approximate quantity was 4000 tons of aero scrap, more or less.
2,50,000 on or before November 22, 1946 and the balance of Rs.
2745 of 1947 in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court against the respondents for recovery of the sum of Rs.
1122 of1966.
The appellants, who were dealing also in the purchase of new and second hand machinery, on companying to know from an adver tisement in a Daily that the defendant respondent was offering for sale aero scrap, addressed a letter, dated November 6, 1946 to the respondent intimating their desire to purchase the materials advertised for sale, and stating that one of their representatives would be companytacting them shortly.
The circumstances leading up to the institution of the said suit may be stated.
P. Maheshwari and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellant.
The, respondent by its letter dated November 20, 1946 acknowledged the receipt of the appellants letter dated November 18, 1946 together with the modifications companytained therein.
Under the circumstances, they request the respondent to treat their letter, dated November 18, 1946 as cancelled and to return the sum of Rs.
