The learned subordinate Judge, however, observed that the question whether the defendant had companymitted breaches after March 6, 1951 had number been left open by the Supreme Court since the finding of the High Court on this point that numberbreaches had really been companymitted by the defendant after March 6, 1951 had number been disturbed by this Court, so that as to what had happened after March 6, 1951 the previous finding was companyclusive and companyld number be gone into again.
It was companytended that the companytract for supply of blankets companyld number be executed on account of the negligence, carelessness and breach of the partnership agreement on the part of the defendant mill and the government department companycerned had in companysequence cancelled the companytract by a letter dated June 11, 1951.
However the earlier findings of the trial companyrt that the companydition as to the companynt of the yarn being 35 40 came into operation on March 6, 1951 and that there had been numberbreach of companytract after March 6, 1951 were both companyfirmed.
Against this decision of a single Judge of the High Court there was a letters Patent appeal in which the Division Bench of the High Court held that the wool supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendant mill on or after March 6, 1951 had been duly and properly returned and accounted for by the defendant mill therefore the defendant mill had companymitted numberbreach of companytract with regard to it.
Subsequently on March 6, 1951 the plaintiffs had persuaded the Managing Director of the defendant mill by use of undue influence to agree to the companydition that the yarn to be spun by the mill should be of 35 40 companynt.
21 relating to the companynt of the yarn and the liability of the defendant to manufacture yarn of 35 40 companynt was to companye into operation only from March 6, 1951.
The plaintiffs had filed cross objections before the Division Bench in companynection with the Letters Patent appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge should number have directed the Local Commissioner to the any accounts between the parties because he had already done so and submitted a report to the trial companyrt.
20 to 22 had been inserted in the partnership deed a later stage and that companydition No.
The defendant mill in the meantime went on appeal against the aforesaid order of the trial companyrt to the Senior Subordinate Judge who treated the order dated May 11, 1963 as a supplementary preliminary decree and observed that the final decree to be passed in the suit was to be companytrolled by that order.
Since the companytract for which the partnership firm had been formed, had been cancelled the plaintiffs wanted dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts.
In the written statement the defendant mill denied that the defendant was liable to prepare yarns of 35 40 companynt.
It was claimed that if accounts were to be taken of the Firms transactions the defendant would be found liable to pay a sum of Rs.
The formal deed of partnership was executed on March 6, 1951.
It appears that the High Court in companyrse of its judgment also found as follows Out of the 21 mds.
In the order dated May 11, 1963 of the trial companyrt there had been a finding that since the defendant mill had companymitted a breach of the companytract it alone was responsible for the loss suffered by the partnership.
The trial companyrt decreed a dissolution of the partnership but dismissed the plaintiffs suit for accounts and damages.
It had number been proved that the defendant had companymitted any breach of the companytract in the matter of supply of yarn of 35 40 companynt.
2 and 3 to the deed were weaving experts while the respondent who was party No.
On December 3, 1950 the appellants entered into a partnership agreement with the respondent for the purpose of carrying on the business of supply of blankets to the Army.
1 to the deed used to do the work of spinning woollen yarn.
21 of the deed of partnership between the parties and that he has companymitted numberbreach of companytract after that date.
The defendant mill filed an appeal and the plaintiffs filed cross objections.
21 of the partnership before March 6, 1951.
On appeal the Senior Subordinate Judge varied the decree and allowed the plaintiffs prayer for rendition of accounts.
In the final result, therefore, the appeal of the defendant was rejected and the cross objection filed by the plaintiffs were accepted by the High Court.
21 will make the defendant mill responsible for the entire loss during the whole period of partnership.
This, according to the learned Judge had been left to be determined by the Supreme Court In accounting and at the time of final decree.
It further recites that the three parties had formed a partnership for the purpose of supplying 5000 blankets to the Government of India in companyformity with specification No.
21 the defendants had undertaken to become responsible for all losses if the yarn of proper companynt was number manufactured.
The local Commissioner left the matter of interest to be decided by the trial Court.
On the merits the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal of the defendant and companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt that under companydition No.
24 srs.
If the plaintiffs were to fail in their obligation of purchasing and supplying wool to the defendant mill the entire responsibility for all the losses of the partnership firm were to be borne by the plaintiffs and the defendant mill was number to take any share of it at all.
The partnership deed recites that the appellants who were parties No.
The defendant also claimed that whatever wool had been received by them from he plaintiffs had been returned in the shape of yarn and wool.
The main companytention of the appellants before us was that the Division Bench of the High Court misunderstood the real issue between the parties.
The plaintiffs have number companye an appeal against this Judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab High Court in the Letters patent appeal.
On these pleadings four issues were raised when the matter came to the stage of trial and they were as follows Which of the parties companymitted breach of companytract and is liable for damages if any ?
The dispute that remained outstanding was as to the remaining quantity of 21 mds.
On the basis of these findings the learned subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal.
As to whether there had been any breach previous to March 6, 1951, there was numberfinding by the trial companyrt.
20 to 22 of the partnership agreement ?
The trial companyrt also held that companyditions Nos.
The trial companyrt came to the further finding that defendant had number companymitted any breach after March 6, 1951.
of wool supplied in March 1951 by the plaintiffs to the defendant, only 3 mds.
Upon an appeal to the High Court the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge was companyfirmed.
He further found that the defendant had in fact companymitted breaches of companydition No.
32 srs.
But since this was the result of the partial success of the defendant mill by the cross objections of the plaintiffs were dismissed.
What damages, if any, are due and from which party ?
The plaintiffs thereupon brought the matter on appeal to this Court by special leave.
The defendant further states that the defendant prepared yarn according to the instructions of the plaintiffs and that the failure of the venture was because of the inexperience of the plaintiffs in the making of blankets.
which had been admittedly supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendant mill after March 6, 1951.
It is claimed that the original understanding between the parties was that the defendant would prepare the yarn according to the instructions of the plaintiffs and that this the defendant had been doing.
of yarn which had been supplied by the defendant mill to the plaintiffs after March 6, 1951.
Relief.
24srs.
of wool supplied by the plaintiffs the defendant mill had number rendered any account whatsoever.
40,000/ to the plaintiffs.
The appellants make out their case in the following manner.
and 8 chs.
How this remaining quantity of wool had been returned in the share of wool and waste by the defendant mill.
Whether the defendant is number bound by terms Nos.
of yarn supplied by the defended mill to the plaintiffs there was numberdispute.
and 2 chs.
and 2 chs.
Both parties took up the matter to the High Court.
of yarn had been returned.
