Therefore the Controller was in a way right when he said that it was for the first time in its letter of the 8th May, 1962 that the appellant companypany insisted that it would accept only those goods which were of standard and merchantable quality.
921 per metric ton.
It also companytended that in spite of specific directions from the Controller the 6th respondent failed to send its said revised pro forma invoice within three days.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave is directed aganist the judgment and order of the High Court at Calcutta which upheld the judgment and order of the Single Judge of that High.
7 lacs and odd though directed by the Controller and further that it was number entitled to charge the said 1,238 tons and odd at Rs.
The order also stated that the appellant companypany should make arrangement for payment within three days of the receipt of the revised pro forma invoice and that if the transaction was number companypleted by May 12, 1962 due to any fault on the part of the appellant companypany he would companysider the disposal of the said sheets in favour of some other party.
7 lacs and odd as excess payable to it by the 6th respondent.
The last companytention however was number pressed and it need number therefore detain us.
928 of 1965.
269 of 1963.
921 per ton after deducting therefrom the said amount of Rs.
Appended to the said order was a numbere of the Controller addressed to the appellant companypany which ran as follows Due to their number lifting of Drum sheet 18G for 2168.25 M T against the said three release orders , they are advised to numbere that the same quantity of allotment against the said R Os has been treated as cancelled, matter is treated as closed finally.
Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents Nos.
The 6th respondent thereafter sent its revised invoice at the rate directed by the Controller but without adjusting the said excess and insisting that 1,238 tons and odd were already delivered and that only 2,168 tons remained to be delivered.
The 6th respondent refused to accept the said slip and instead sent on May 7, 1962 another invoice without adjusting the said excess thus, according to the appellant companypany, making it impossible for it to lift the steel sheets.
K. Sen, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley, P. L. Vohra, Mahinder Narain, for respondent No.
He also directed the 6th respondent to send to the appellant companypany revised pro forma invoice within three days.
Therefore, the delivery of 1,238 tons, if this letter were to be true, would be number under the oral agreement but under the release orders and companysequently the 6th respondent companyld number be said number to have offered the full quantity under the said release orders.
1943 A.C. 627.,
As regards the Controllers refusal to record the evidence of the said Lalta Prasad the learned Judges were of the view that it was number incumbent upon the Controller to record such evidence, that the Controller had given adequate opportunity to both the parties to adduce their respective case, that all the relevant companyrespondence and documents were produced by them before the Controller and that therefore it was impossible to hold that there was any breach of the principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, there was also the letter of the 6th respondent to the Steel Minister in which it had companyplained of the appellant companypany number having taken delivery at all.
The appeal companyrt also rejected the companypanys companytention that until May 7, 1962 when the 6th respondent sent its revised invoice asking the appellant companypany to take delivery of the goods as it is lying with us the appellant companypany had numberchance to raise this point.
7,40,595 whereas in its letter dated April 23, 1962 to the 6th respondent the claim was for Rs.
In the said invoice it also included the price of 1,238 tons at Rs.
In its letter dated February 23, 1962 to the Controller the excess amount claimed was Rs.
The said companysent order provided , inter alia, that the Controller shall himself hear the parties and ascertain for himself which of them was at fault in making the said order of 1/2 May, 1962 ineffective.
The appellant companypany also companytended that the 6th respondent failed to deduct the excess amount of Rs.
The Controller sent a companyy of this letter to the appellant companypany and in the numbere appended thereto informed the companypany that it should lift the materials before May 12, 1962.
In pursuance of the said three release orders the 6th respondent sent its pro forma invoice but only for 2,168 tons and odd stating that it had already delivered between November 1961 and February 1962, 1238 tons and odd in part satisfaction of the said release orders.
By his order dated 1/2 May, 1962 the Controller directed that the 6th respondent should charge the appellant companypany at the rate of Rs.
7 lacs and odd said to be excess payment was claimed by the appellant companypany from the 6th respondent to recover which the appellant companypany had filed suits in August 1961 and January 1963 in the High Courts at Bombay and Calcutta.
Bishan Narain, B. Dutta, S. C. Chagla, Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
875 per ton, that the said 1,238 tons having been delivered under the said agreement the entire quantity of 3,406 tons and odd remained undelivered and that therefore its offer to deliver only 2,168 and odd tons was number a proper offer.
In order to appreciate the first companytention it is necessary first to companysider the companytent of the principles of natural justice.
On the other hand if he were to find that the appellant companypany was at fault he need number change the said cancellation order.
Court dismissing the writ pettition filed by the appellant companypany.
At the time of the hearing the appellant companypany offered to examine the said Lalta Prasad Goenka as its witness to prove the said oral agreement.
749 C D 750 C, An error of law on the face of an award means that the companyrt must first find whether there is any legal proposition which is the basis of the award.
The Controller had heard the case of the parties through their companynsel.
It also provided that if the Controller were to find that the appellant companypany was number at fault but that the order companyld number be companyplied with by it because of any unreasonable stand taken by the 6th respondent he should reconsider his said order of cancellation of allotment.
The Controller would direct under such a release order an importer or a stockist to supply steel sheets to the appellant companypany at rates and on terms and companyditions specified by him therein.
Against this order of cancellation the appellant companyn any filed a writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta.
875 per ton.
In pursuance of the said companysent order the Controller fixed December 13, 1962 for hearing the parties and gave permission to them to appear through companynsel.
It came up for hearing on September 14, 1962 before Banerjee J. when the parties took a companysent order.
That number having been done the companypany companyld have numbergrievance of numberhaving been heard.
921 after deducting from the price therefore the said excess of Rs.
The appellant companypany filed another suit in the High Court at Bombay inter alia for a mandatory injunction directing the 6th respondent to deliver the entire quantity of 3,406 tons and odd at Rs.
Against the order of Banerjee J. the appellant companypany filed Letters Patent Appeal which was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Bachawat and A. K. Mukherjee JJ.
7,64,438.40 nP. The difficulty therefore was as to what was the amount which the 6th respondent was expected to refund.
The Controller, however, refused to record his evidence.
There was besides discrepancy in the amount of excess claimed by the appellant companypany.
Aggrieved by this order the appellant companypany filed a writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta for having the said order quashed.
7 lacs.
On the 13th and the 18th December, 1962 the Controller heard the parties who appeared through companynsel and took on record companyrespondence, affidavits and other documents produced by the parties.
The 6th respondent declined to accept the same whereupon the appellant companypany apprised the Controller about the difference between them.
921 per ton as the said quantity as aforesaid was delivered under the said oral agreement and therefore companyld charge at Rs.
As regards the appellant companypanys application to examine the said Lalta Parsad, he gave three reasons for refusing it 1 that he was number in a position to take down the evidence 2 that it was number possible for him to examine him on oath or on solemn, affirmation and 3 that his evidence would number have been companyclusive as one party would have asserted and the other party would, have denied the aid agreement.
The companytention was that the 6th respondent was number justified in offering delivery of 2,168 and odd tons only instead of 3,406 and odd tons, that it was number justified in claiming that the delivery of the said 1,238 tons and odd was under the said release orders, that the said 1,238 tons and odd were delivered under and in pursuance of an oral agreement arrived at between Lalta Prasad Goenka, a director of the appellant companypany and one Jitpal on behalf of the 6th respondent whereunder the 6th respondent had agreed to deliver 4,500 tons from out of its free sale stock at Rs.
Being present at the hearing,he companyld have instructed companynsel to state all that he wanted to depose.
921 per metric ton and deduct the excess charges paid to it earlier.
C.I./66 3 Challenging the order of the High Court Mr. Bishan Narain for the appellant companypany raised three companytentions 1 that the Controller did number hear the appellant companypany in full and violated the principles of natural justice by refusing to record the evidence of Lalta Prasad 2 that on the question of refund of the excess charges the Controllers order suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record and 3 that the finding of the Controller that the appellant companypany wanted to pick and choose was without evidence.
751 G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant companypany was at all material times carrying on the business of manufacturing barrels and for that purpose required steel sheets.
750 D E It companyld number be said that there was numberevidence that the appellant companypany wanted to pick and choose the goods.
The witness produced by the appellant was number of a material character.
By his order dated 24/26 May, 1962 addressed to the 6th res pondent the Controller allotted 2,168 and odd tons of the said steel sheets in favour of the 7th respondent cancelling the allotment in favour of the appellant companypany.
By three such release orders, of October 28 and 29, 1960 the Controller directed the 6th respondent M s. Amichand Pyarelal Co., to supply to the appellant companypany 3406.386 metric tons of steel sheets.
975.55 per metric ton which was a higher rate than the one fixed by the Controller.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 24, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
An amount of Rs.
In these invoices the 6th respondent claimed Rs.
7 lacs and odd.
By reason of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956 and diverse orders passed by the Iron and Steel Controller the appellant companypany companyld get supplies of steel sheets only by obtaining release orders from the Controller on stockists and importers.
The appellant companypany tendered its bankers slip at the rate of Rs.
Reading the impugned order it was difficult to say what legal proposition it companytained in respect of which it companyld be said that there was an error on the face of the record.
The appellant companypany companytended that the 6th respondent failed to implement the said order and thereby made it ineffective.
In this view the Division Bench companyfirmed the order of Banerjee J. and dismissed the appeal.
On the facts of the case the refusal of the Controller to examine the witness in question did number companystitute a breach of natural justice.
The appellant companypany thereupon tendered the price at the rate fixed by the Controller also deducting therefrom the said excess of Rs.
Prior to these three orders certain other release orders had been issued on the 6th respondent and the appellant companypany had paid large amounts in respect of steel sheets supplied thereunder on the basis of pro forma invoices issued by the 6th respondent and their sister companycerns.
The witness was a director of the appellant companypany.
The pendency of the appellant companypanys suit to recover the said excess may also have made it difficult for the Controller to hold that the 6th respondent was to be blamed in number adjusting the said excess in the said revised pro forma invoice.
On December 21, 1964 the Controller passed his order holding the appellant companypany responsible for number carrying out his directions in the order dated 1/2 May, 1962 and held that the cancellation of allotment in favour of the appellant companypany need number be reconsidered.
and Union of India v. R. Varma, 1958 S.C.R. 499, referred to.
