S.7/IS/59 dated 8 7 1959 hereby fix maximum price of sale for the following essential companymodities in the following localities as shown against each XX XX Milk Rs.
23.50 per maund.
15.90 per maund, as the companytrolled price was Rs.
The defendants companytended that there was numbercontrol by Government of the price of milk in the strict sense of the term and that the appellant, having agreed to supply milk at the rate of Rs.
The witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents have also stated that after the companytrol of the price of milk by the numberification, the price of milk went up in the market.
The Division Bench reversed the decision and dismissed the suit.
In pursuance to the agreement, the appellant supplied milk to the hospital during the period of the agreement.
As already stated, the positive evidence of P.Ws.
25/ per maund as the price for the milk supplied by him from the date of the numberification.
The relevant clause in the agreement runs as follows The companytractor shall be paid at the rates against each of the article was as below for the supplies to be made by him Cr.
The appellant submitted a tender for supply of milk to the S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar, in pursuance to a tender numberice issued by the Superintendent of the Hospital at the rate of Rs.
15.90 per maund.
25/ per maund for the period in question.
The only question for companysideration is whether the appellant was entitled to get Rs.
This is practically the same as paragraph 12 of the Tender Notice.
25/ per maund from May, 2, 1961, to the end of March, 1962, and filed the suit.
This tender was accepted and a regular agreement was drawn up between the parties on May 17, 1961.
A learned single Judge of the High Court, who tried the case, came to the companyclusion that the appellant was entitled to the price mentioned in the numberification and decreed the suit on that basis.
The case of the appellant was that although he agreed to supply milk at the rate of Rs.
15.90 per maund, companyld number take advantage of the companytrol of the price of milk, and therefore, he was number entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs.
The price of milk was companytrolled by virtue of a numberification issued on May 2, 1961 and this companytrol remained in force till the end of the companytract period namely, March 31, 1962.
25/ per maund, he was entitled to be paid at this rate after the date of the numberification companytrolling the price.
1 to 8 is to the effect that the appellant himself purchased milk from them at the rate of Rs.
He, therefore, claimed price of milk at the rate of Rs.
23.50 per maund after the aforesaid numberification.
The State filed an appeal against the decree before the Division Bench.
15.90 per maund.
One of the companyditions in the agreement was that if milk become a companytrolled article during the period of the agreement, the companytractor shall be paid at the companytrolled rate for the supply of the articles made by him.
In fact, the appellant has examined 8 witnesses to show that, after the numberification, the price of milk went up and they supplied milk to the appellant at Rs.
The Division Bench was of the view that the numberification did number companytrol the price of milk but only fixed the maximum price at which milk companyld be brought and sold in the market and that did number deter any person from selling milk at a price lower than that fixed by the numberification and so, the appellant companyld have purchased milk in the market at a lower price and supplied it to the Hospital in accordance with the terms of the agreement, namely, at Rs.
Thus, the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents also shows that the price of milk went up in the market after the numberification.
Mathew, J. This is an appeal, by certificate, against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir whereby a Division Bench of the High Court allowed an appeal filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir from a decree for recovery of money in favour of the plaintiff appellant.
