First, it companytended that the katcha bricks formed numberpart of the companytract and even if it was at fault in number taking delivery of the burnt bricks in time all that it companyld be held liable for would be for breach of that companytract and said that the loss that was occasioned by the damage caused to the katcha bricks which formed numberpart of the companytract was too remote.
34 of 1949 and in Title Suit No.
Delivery was to be at the kiln site.
While this lot was baking be had to prepare and stock another lot of katcha bricks ready to take the place of the baked bricks as soon as they were removed.
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate General for the State of Bihar S. Varma and M. Sinha, with him , for the appellant In Civil Appeal No.
75,900 as the price of 88 lacs of katcha bricks that were destroyed by rain.
253 of 1950 and in appeal from Original Order No.
As this loss was occasioned by the default of the C.P.W.D. the companytractor claimed that be should be paid their price.
27 of 1949 respectively.
Had everything been done to time the 2 1/2 crores of bricks would have been delivered before the rains set in.
But owing to the default of the C.P.W.D. in number removing the burnt bricks which were ready for removal, delay occurred in the time table and the rains set in with the result that88 lacs of katcha bricks were destroyed by the rains.
260 of 1953 and companynected appeal C.A. No.
The Dominion of India filed objections under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and prayed that the award be set aside and alternatively that it be modified or companyrected.
First, he had to prepare katcha or unbaked bricks and place them in his kilns for baking.
March 24.
It was the duty of the C.P.W.D. to remove these bricks as soon as they were ready for delivery,that is to say, as soon as they were fully baked.
The Union of India filed an appeal to the High Court.
260 of 1953 .
At a certain stage of the companytract the P.W.D. failed to remove the baked bricks which were ready for delivery and removal.
The companytract was for the supply of 2 1/2 crores of pucca bricks which bad to be delivered according to the following schedule 30 lacs by 25 1 46 50 lacs by 25 2 46 55 lacs by 25 3 46 55 lacs by 25 4 46 60 lacs by 25 5 46.
The companytractor thereupon appealed to this Court.
In order to keep to this schedule the companytractor bad to think ahead and work to a particular time table.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The dispute that was referred to the arbitrator companysisted of 17 heads of claim but only three of them are companytested here, namely items 5, 8 and 17.
The appellant before us, whom it will be companyvenient to call the companytractor, entered into a companytract with the Dominion of India through an Additional Chief Engineer of the C.P.W.D. on 1 11 1945 for the supply of bricks to the C.P.W.D., a department of the Dominion Government.
This caused a jam in the kilns and prevented the companytractor from placing a fresh stock of unburnt bricks in the kilns, and in the meanwhile his stock pile of katcha bricks ready for baking kept on mounting up.
The Union Government relied on additional clause 6 of the agreement which is in these terms The department will number entertain any claim for idle labour or for damage to unburnt bricks due to any cause whatsoever.
252 of 1950 arising out of the order dated the 11th day of May 1951 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad in Suit No.
We will deal with Civil Appeal No.
64,075 under this head.
In the 5th head of claim the companytractor claimed Rs.
The suit there related to an arbitration matter.
The reply of the Union Government was two fold.
It was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, and the companytractor prayed that it be accepted and that a decree be passed in terms of it.
12 of 1954 .
Secondly, that companypensation for this loss companyld number in any event be claimed because this kind of situation was envisaged by the parties when the companytract was made and they expressly stipulated that the Dominion Government would number be responsible.
The companytractors application was registered as a suit under section 20 2 of the Act and a decree was passed in terms of the award on 18 3 1950.
The arbitrator held that this clause was number meant to absolve the department from carrying out their part of the companytract and so he awarded the companytractor Rs.
Disputes arose about a number of matters.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him , for the respondent In both the Appeals .
By that time the Constitution had companye into force and the Union of India replaced the Dominion of India as a defendant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J. This appeal and Civil Appeal No.
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate General for the State of Bihar M. Sinha for R. C. Prasad, with him , for the appellant In Civil Appeal No.
These bricks were number the subject matter of the companytract but the companytractor put his claim in this way.
12 of 1954, which will also be governed by this judgment, raise the same points though there are some differences in the facts.
Appeals from the Judgment and Decree dated the 11th day of May 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No.
260 of 1953 first.
Clause 14 of the agreement provided that all disputes arising out of or relating to the companytract should be referred to the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being.
12 of 1954 .
Accordingly, there was a reference on 21 1 1949 and an award followed on 8 5 1949.
