171 per cwt.
1,56,000 as a deposit for the price of the said goods.
That in brief is the nature of the claim made by the appellant against the respondent.
The principal ground urged by him, however, was that the transaction in suit for the sale of 300 tons of Electrolytic Zinc was in companytravention of the provisions of Supply and Prices of Goods Act, 1950 70 of 1950 and cl.
The appellant tendered the said goods to the respondent whereupon he arranged to take delivery of only 160 tons and made payments on account.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
b of the Government of India Notification No.
As a result of the respondents default in taking delivery the appellant had to sell the balance in the falling market at Rs.
B. Agarwala, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O. Mathur, for the appellant.
The respondent paid to.
against delivery orders issued under the regulations of the Metal Traders Association, Ltd., for Posh Sudi 15 delivery January 12, 1952 .
93,053 3 0 which represented the loss suffered by it in the transaction in question or in the alternative damages for Rs.
Against this decision the respondent preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of the Appeal Court allowed his appeal.
The appellant then tendered the balance of 140 tons to the respondent but the respondent failed and neglected to take delivery of the said balance and to pay for it.
The suit was tried by Coyajee, J. on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court.
Ajit H. Mehta and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent,.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
88,229 3 0 for breach of the companytract in respect of the said transaction.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal arises from a suit filed by M s. Binani Commercial Co. Ltd., on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court against the respondent Ramanlal Maganlal Mehta.
49 of 1955.
The principal defence raised by the respondent was tried as a preliminary issue by the learned Judge.
1 4 32 17 50 issued on September 2, 1950.
The respondent also carries on business in Bombay under the name and style of M s. Balasinor Export and Import Co., and also as M s. Ramanlal and Sons.
In January 1952 the appellant agreed to sell to the respondent 300 tons of Electrolytic Zinc at the rate of Rs.
and that had resulted in the loss to the appellant.
the appellant several sums aggregating Rs.
81 per cwt.,
May 1.
The respondent also raised other companytentions on the merits without prejudice to his principal companytention about the illegality of the companytract.
The appellant is a Limited Company and it carries on business in Bombay as metal merchants, bankers and companymission agents.
In its suit the appellant sought to recover from the respondent a sum of Rs.
The respondent promised to pay for the said goods by January 21, 1952 and to take delivery thereafter.
This claim was resisted by the respondent on several grounds.
371 of 1957.
According to the respondent the said transaction was void and illegal and therefore the appellants claim was number maintainable in law.
