On December 6, 1942, the said Jasubhai wrote to the appellants informing them that their companytracts were number binding on the mills as they were null and void.
On both these points, the learned judge found in favour of the appellants.
These two issues related to the question of extension of time for the performance of the companytract and the plea of limitation.
In companysequence, the respondent wrote to the appellants firm on August 15, 1942, and stated that, in view of the strike and the political situation, the delivery time of all the pending companytracts should be automatically understood as extended for the period the working of the mills was stopped and until the numbermal state of affairs recurred.
The appellants then formally demanded the delivery of goods in January and again in February 1943, and, since the demand was number companyplied with, the appellants filed the present suit on January 9, 1946, claiming damages to the extent of Rs.
The respondent then preferred an appeal in the High Court at Bombay and his appeal was allowed.
In reply, the respondent repeated its earlier companytentions by its letter dated December 20, 1942.
Subsequently, on September 18, 1942, as a result of the companypromise between Chinubhai and his brothers Jasubhai and Babubhai, this managing agency of the mills fell to the share of Jasubhai and Babubhai.
In the plaint, it was alleged that the suit was in time because the request made by the respondent for extension of time had been accepted by the appellants.
642 of 1949, arising out of the judgment and decree dated July 30, 1949, of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad in Suit No.
Then he saw Chinubhai at the mills and told him that he accepted the extension of time as per the said letter.
1,52,334 8 9 with interest and companyts.
78 of 1954.
The evidence given by Ratilal is companyroborated by the testimony of Keshavlal.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 17, 1950, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
I He also stated that, besides the subject of extension of time, numberother matter was discussed between them at the said meeting.
The proposal to extend time was made by the respondent by its letter Ex.
Purshottam Tricumdas, M. H. Chhatarpati and S. S. Shukla, for the appellants.
The learned trial judge framed several issues with two of which the present appeal is companycerned.
That is why it was held that the appellants suit was barred by time.
The learned Judges of the High Court have held that the oral evidence led by the appellants to show the acceptance of the respondents proposal for the extension of time companyld number be treated as true or reliable.
In the result the appellants claim was decreed.
On August 9, 1942, the workers in the respondent mills went on strike in sympathy with the Quit India, movement which had then companymenced.
They also rejected the appellants case on the ground that the companyduct of the appellants subsequent to the stoppage of the respondents mills did number show acceptance of the respondents proposal for extension of time.
The strike came to an end and the mills resumed working on November 22, 1942.
The delivery of these goods was to be given in the month of October 1942.
It may be mentioned at this stage that, when the companytracts were made between the appellants and the respondent, Chinubhai Lalbhai was in charge of the managing agency of the mills.
P. 78 , and so this agreement to extend time was void since it wag vague and uncertain.
Besides, in the opinion of the High Court, even if acceptance had been proved, it was number possible to ascribe any certain or definite meaning to the words used by the respondent in its letter dated August 15, 1942 Ex.
This is admitted by the respondent in its letter dated December 6, 1942, Ex.
The appellants are the partners of M S. Navinchandra Co. This partnership had placed an order with the respondent for 251 bales of printed chints on or about July 4, 1942, and the said order had been accepted by the respondent by its letters dated July 1 1 and July 20, 1942.
In particular, the respondent urged that there was numberagreement between the parties with regard to the extension of time and so the suit was barred by limitation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In cross examination, Ratilal added that he met Chinubhai at the office in his mills.
The suit was resisted by the respondent on several grounds.
10 of 1946.
Ratilal P. W. I stated that, four or five days after this letter was received, he went to Ahmedabad where he met and companysulted Keshavlal.
It appears on the evidence of both these witnesses that, after the mills reopened, they had gone to Jasubhai and demanded delivery of the bales according to the companytracts.
It is these findings which are challenged before us by the appellants in the present appeal.
March 21.
P. 78 on August 15, 1942.
Another order was placed by the appellants with the respondent for 31 bales of printed chints on July 24, 1942, and this order was accepted by the respondent on July 25, 1942.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India and I. Shroff, for the respondent.
The plaintiffs claim had been decreed by the trial companyrt but on appeal it has been dismissed.
On December 17, 1942, the appellants wrote to the respondent that, as the respondent had extended the time of delivery of all goods by its letter dated August 15, 1942, the respondent was bound to deliver the companytracted goods and that if the respondent did number do so, the appellants would be companypelled to take legal proceedings against the respondent.
The delivery period for the said goods was fixed for the months of September and October, 1942.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree passed by the High Court of Bombay dismissing their suit to recover from the defendant Rs.
1,52,334 8 9 as damages for breach of companytract for number delivery of certain companyton goods.
These pleas have been negatived in the companyrts below.
On December 5, 1942, Jasubhai, who was then in charge of the management of the mills was approached by the appellants, Keshavlal and Ratilal, for obtaining delivery of the goods.
He, however, told them that the appellants companytracts were void and so numberdelivery companyld be claimed or given.
He admitted that numberletter had been written by the appellants companyfirming their acceptance of the respondents proposal to extend time.
