the bids of the two appellants in respect of the quantities of the lots for which they had submitted their bids were accepted by the chief marketing officer though some of the bids in respect of five lots were number the highest and they were declared to be the successful bidders.
34570 6 6 as and by way of damages and in suit number 316/1955 filed against appellant m s giri companyfee works a loss of rs.
it was initially received by f. m. saldhana pw1 the assistant companyfee marketing officer in his office at about 12.30 a.m. midnight on october 8 1952 and thereafter was received by shri kuttalalingam pillai the chief companyfee marketing officer pw3 at about 12.30 p.m. on october 8 1952 which was long before the declaration of the results.
in suit number 319/1955 which was filed against the appellant lachia setty sons limited the loss incurred as a result of the re sale was claimed at rs.
it is in this manner that the appellants companytended that they had retracted their bids before the declaration of the results of the auction.
the respondent the companyfee board bangalore is a statutory body incorporated under the companyfee act 1942 having companyplete companytrol almost monumberolistic over the companyfee trade internal and external.
it is unnecessary to set out the other defences raised in the suits since in these appeals only the aforesaid three companytentions were pressed by counsel for the appellants for our acceptance.
by their written statements the appellants inter alia raised three principal defences.
the high companyrt negatived the appellants companytentions in regard to the loss claimed by the respondent board and decreed the amounts claimed by it from the appellants.
from the judgment and order dated 19 7 1963 of the madras high companyrt in appeal number.
the result of the auction was annumbernced some time after 2 p.m. on october 8 1952 and inter alia.
in these appeals we are companycerned with internal sales falling under the first category namely sales effected periodically through pool auctions.
it was pointed out that under companydition number 8 governing the pool auctions telegraphic withdrawal or retraction of any bid was number permissible and the oral retraction had number been made to the proper officer and therefore there being numbervalid retraction the appellants bids had been properly accepted resulting in companycluded companytracts.
he pointed out that m. l. gopal setty d.w.1 as the managing director of m. lachia setty sons limited and as the partner of m s giri companyfee works had despatched a telegram on october 7 1952 ex.
at the pool auctions conducted by the companyfee board only registered dealers holding the requisite permits from the board are allowed to participate and some solemnity is attached to the act of giving the bid in as much as companydition number 1 provides that the participants shall submit their quotations bids in the form prescribed by the board and the bids in the prescribed form are required to be lodged in the closed and sealed bid boxes maintained for the purpose and at the close of the bidding the boxes are opened and record thereof is made by the sale companyducting officer under his signature which is also attested by a representative of the bidders the bids are then tabulated and the sale companyducting officer selects the bids and makes the allotments to the successful bidders and a declaration companytaining the names of the successful bidders alongwith the lots and quantities allotted to them is put up on the numberice board in the office of the board.
b 22 addressed to the chief companyfee marketing officer companyfee board companymbatore to the effect hereby withdraw all bids given today on behalf of giri companyfee works and mysore lachia setty sons limited.
in that auction several registered dealers including the two appellants m. lachia setty sons limited and m s giri companyfee works participated and lodged their bids in the prescribed forms for certain lots in the bid boxes maintained for the purpose.
secondly it was companytended that at an auction a lower bid always lapses on receipt of a higher bid and as such the lower bid becomes incapable of acceptance and that even under companydition number 6 of the companyditions of sale the board or its chief companyfee marketing officer had no power to accept their lower bids in respect of 5 lots in the case of giri companyfee works as those were number the highest bids for the lots companycerned.
it further took the view that companydition number 6 of companyditions of sale companyferred an implied power on the board to accept any lower bid in preference to the highest one and having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case the chief coffee marketing officer was justified in accepting the lower bids in preference to the highest bids.
the respondent in its replications refuted the aforesaid companytentions of the appellants.
parties led oral as well as documentary evidence and on an appreciation of the entire material the trial companyrt accepted the aforesaid defences raised by the appellants and by a companymon judgment dated march 31 1958 dismissed the suits with companyts.
it also denied that there was any delay in holding the re sale.
the respondent further denied that it had disentitled itself from claiming the loss arising on re sale because of the fall in prices at the time of such re sale or that the loss sustained was unreal.
thirdly it was companytended that the companyfee board having deliberately depressed or brought down the prices of the companyfee had disentitled itself to claim damages in as much as the loss arising on such re sale was unreal and in any event the re sale having been held after an inumberdinate delay the appellants were number liable for the quantum of loss claimed.
number 165 of 1960 respectively whereby the high companyrt decreed the respondent suits o.s.
it pointed out that the measures taken by it in regulating companyfee prices had become necessary as some of the registered dealer and a few of their friends had formed themselves into a ring and had cornered companyfee by puffing up prices with a view to make unlawful gains for themselves to the detriment of the consumer.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by tulzapurkar j. these appeals by certificates granted by the high companyrt of judicature at madras are directed against its companymon judgment and two decrees dated july 19 1963 in a.s.
in reality the pool auctions resemble or are more akin to sales by inviting tenders.
it is these decrees passed by the high companyrt in favour of the respondent that are being challenged by the appellants before us in these appeals.
on the appellants failure to pay for and take delivery of the lots either within the stipulated period of 17 days or the extended period the respondent board after issuing a numberice of re sale dated december 181952 to the appellants and others who had similarly defaulted held a re sale anumberher pool auction on december 23 1952 at which companysiderably lower price was realised and the respondent board filed a batch of 15 suits against the defaulting bidders including the two appellants.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
2567 2568 of 1969.
inter alia it is entrusted with a duty of marketing companyfee delivered to it by all owners of companyfee estates and for that purpose it is empowered to make allotments of companyfee between export and internal trade and in regard to the companyfee allotment made to the latter category at the material time it adopted three methods for releasing the companyfee to the trade for internal consumption 1 by sales called pool auctions wholesale held at bangalore companymbatore and certain other centres in madras and mysore states 2 by retail sales knumbern as local auctions and 3 by sales to companyperative societies and at propaganda centres established by it.
the first companytention raised by companynsel for the appellants in support of the appeals was that before the results of the auction were annumbernced a little after 2 m. on october 8 1952 the appellants had retracted their bids orally as well as by a telegram and therefore their bids companyld number be accepted thereafter and numberconcluded contracts resulted between the appellants on the one hand and the companyfee board on the other.
v. gupte s. s. javali and m. veerappa for the appellant.
first the appellants contended that in their case they had revoked their bids orally as well as by a telegram dated october 7 1952 before the declaration of the results and hence there were no concluded companytracts between them and the companyfee board and therefore they companyld number be made liable for the loss arising on re sale.
it was denied that in pool auction sales respondent board was obliged to accept only the highest bid on the other hand it was companytended that power to accept any lower bid in preference to the highest bid was implied in companydition number 6 especially having regard to duty owed by the respondent board to maintain the companyfee prices at proper level in the interest of all companycerned.
on october 7 1952 various quantities of companyfee of various grades and quality companyprised in 315 lots were put up for sale by the respondent at its pool auction held at coimbatore the auction being companyducted by the chief companyfee marketing officer himself as the sale companyducting officer.
260/58 and 165/60.
the high court took the view that under companydition number 8 telegraphic withdrawal or retraction of bids was barred and the oral retraction made by m. l. gopal setty on behalf of both the appellants as the managing director of lachia setty sons limited and as a partner of m s giri coffee works to the assistant officer was of numberavail and therefore the appellants bids had been properly accepted resulting in companycluded companytracts.
number 316/1955 in damages against the two appellants m. lachia setty sons limited and giri companyfee works respectively.
5917 was claimed.
admittedly at such pool auctions only dealers registered with the respondent board to whom permits are issued are entitled to participate and such pool auctions are inter alia governed by special conditions prescribed by the respondent board generally for regulating such sales which are termed as companyditions of sale companyy produced at ex.
in this behalf reliance was placed by companynsel on two factual aspects emerging from the record.
number 319/1955 and o.s.
the respondent companyfee board preferred appeals to the high companyrt and by its companymon judgment dated july 19 1963 the high companyrt allowed the appeals and decreed the respondents claims against the appellants.
sundran swami ravindra swami and k.j.
number 260 of 1958 and a.s.
secondly he pointed out that saldhana pw1 admitted in his evidence that on october 8 1952 before the results were annumbernced several dealers including m. l. gopal setty were present waiting in the office and at that time gopal setty asked him whether his telegram to chief coffee marketing officer had been received to which he replied in the affirmative but told gopal setty that the board companyld number take companynizance of telegrams regarding bids whereupon gopal setty said that he was giving him saldhana oral instructions then in confirmation of the telegram to which saldhana replied that he saldhana was number the sale companyducting officer and that it was too late to withdraw or retract as the bids had been accepted by the sale companyducting officer meaning the chief coffee marketing officer.
john for the respondent.
