Written statements were filed both by the appellant and Babulal.
1 8 3 per yard and the respondent claimed that it was therefore entitled to damages at the rate of Re.
Thereupon there was an application by the appellant for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was rejected.
The companyt of transport from Kanpur to Calcutta and the labour charges in that companynection were to be borne by the respondent.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 3, 1955, of the High Court of Judicature, Madhya Bharat, Indore, in Civil First Appeal No.
Three main questions arose for determination on the pleadings of the parties.
The first was whether Babulal had acted as agent of the appellant in the matter of this companytract the second was whether the companytract had become impossible of performance because the booking of goods from Kanpur to Calcutta was stopped and the last was whether the respondent was entitled to damages at the rate claimed by it.
It was also agreed that the railway receipt would be delivered on August 5, 1947.
Certain other pleas were raised by the appellant with which we are however number companycerned in the present appeal.
It further hold that the companytract had become impossible of performance.
I per yard.
The delivery was to be made through railway receipt for Calcutta f. o. r. Kanpur.
The companytention of Babulal was that the companytract had become incapable of performance and was therefore rightly rescinded.
March 29.
On this view the suit was dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.193 of 1958.
The High Court held that the companytract had number become impossible of performance as it had number been proved that the booking between Kanpur and Calcutta was closed at the relevant time.
The respondent went in appeal to the High Court and the two main questions that arose there were about the impossibility of the performance of the companytract and the liability of the appellant for damages.
The respondent did number accept that the companytract had become impossible of performance and informed the appellant that it had companymitted a breach of the companytract and was thus liable in damages.
Radhey Lal Aggarwal and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
58 of 1952.
This was followed by an application to this Court for special leave which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
0 8 3 per yard, as the companytract rate settled between the parties was R.s.
The case of the respondent was that a companytract had been entered into between the appellant and the respondent through Babulal for sale of certain canvas at Re.
The trial companyrt held that Babulal had acted as the agent of the appellant in the matter of the companytract and the appellant was therefore bound by it.
After further exchange of numberices between the parties, the present suit was filed in November, 1947.
Lastly it hold that it was the respondents duty when the appellant had failed to perform the companytract to buy the goods in Kanpur and the respondent had failed to prove the rate prevalent in Kanpur on the date of the breach namely, August 5, 1947 and therefore was number entitled to any damages.
This rate was Rs.
The respondent admittedly has number proved the rate of such canvas prevalent in Kanpur on or about the date of breach and therefore it was number entitled to any damages at all, for there is numbermeasure for arriving at the quantum of damages on the record in this case.
B. Aggarwala and Bhagwan Das Jain, for the appellant.
16,946.
A suit was filed by firm Messrs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas hereinafter called the respondent against the appellant firm Messrs. Murlidhar Chiranjilal and one Babulal.
It further held that the respondent was entitled to damages on the basis of the rate prevalent in Calcutta on the date of breach and after making certain deductions decreed the suit for Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Bharat.
The appellant however failed to deliver the railway receipt and informed the respondent on August 8, 1947, that as booking from Kanpur to Calcutta was closed the companytract had become impossible of performance companysequently the appellant cancelled the companytract and returned the advance that had been received.
The appellant on the other hand denied all knowledge of the companytract and did number admit that it was liable to pay any damages.
Further Babulal companytended that he was number in any case liable to pay any damages.
