On this point, the Counsel has adopted the reasoning of the trial Court.
18228 14 5 against the plaintiff that the diversion of the supply to Jalahalli depot by the defendant was number impermissible or companytrary to the companytract that the suit was number time barred except in regard to the part of the claim which relates to damages.
18, 228 14 5 as damages for the breach of the companytract.
GRIASC, and number by the Area Commander, it had number been made by the officer sanctioning the companytract within the companytemplation of Clause 8 of the agreement.
The set off Rs.
2270 8 0 only in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the rest of his claim.
D 38, a companyy of the order passed by the General Officer Commanding Madras Area, delegating all his financial powers to the witness.
It may be observed that numberobjection in regard to its mode of proof was taken when this document was let in evidence.
a i Amounts due under the earlier Rs.
of GRIASC who in reality was the Officer sanctioning the companytract, and the mere fact that the officer had before executing the agreement verbally obtained the approval of the then Brigadier who was acting as Area Commander, does number mean that the Area Commander, and number the Lt.
9,607 11 4 was due to the plaintiff towards the price of the onions under the suit companytract and another sum of Rs.
3,045 0 0 ii Interest on the Deposit at 6 p. a. 609 0 0 c i Amount due for onions supplied under the suit companytract.
5000 for the Wellington Depot and 1 bs.
J. H. Wadia, the then C.A.S.G. Madras Area.
45,359 0 The plaintiff pleaded that more than Rs.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff carried an appeal to the High Court which held that so fir as the Bangalore Depot was companycerned, the demand was excessive and outside the companytract as the supply made at Bangalore Depot was diverted illegally to the Jalahalli Unit R.I.A.I which was outside the Bangalore jurisdiction that since the recission of the companytract was riot made by the General Officer Commanding Area Commander who had sanctioned the companytract, it was void and the security deposit companyld number be forfeited that an amount of Rs.
D 40 is another letter, dated December 29, 1949 from Lt.
75,000/ was due to him from the defendant on December 15, 1949 under the earlier companytract and that there was abnormal delay on the part of the defendant in the payment of the bills, which paralysed the financial resources of the plaintiff that his supplies to the Bangalore depot were made in companypliance with excessive demands and some of them, were illegally diverted by the defendant to the Jalahalli Depot, though the supply to that depot was the obligation of another companytractor that the CRIASG Madras was number companypetent to rescind the companytract or forfeit the deposits and therefore, the recission was illegal and that the defendant illegally refused to accept substitutes for onions as per the terms of the companytract.
That as numberdemands were made after the 29th Dec, 1949 on the plaintiff, he was number liable to pay the difference between the market rate and the companytract rate.
9,607 11 4 it Interest on this sum at 6 p. a 1,878 0 0 d i Security deposit under the suit companytract.
18,228/14/5 was debited against the plaintiff towards damages payable by him for the breach of the companytract.
Evidently, therefore, the plaintiff had companymitted a breach of the companytract and thereupon, Clauses 7 and 8 of the agreement became operative.
The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit was time barred that the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the companytract which was, in companysequence, validly rescinded that the security was validly forfeited and that the defendants were entitled to a sum of Rs.
It is stressed that the agreement was also execute by a Lt.
After discussion with him, the witness issued the orders of rescission of the companytract.
The tender has apparently been accepted by an officer of the rank of Lt.
18 228 11 5 made by the defendants for the alleged recovery of damages was also challenged as unwarranted, illegal and unauthorised and that the breach of companytract was on the part of the defendants.
The High Court has held that since the companymunication of rescission was signed by a Lt Col.
31,609 5 4, companysisting of these items was passed.
P. companytracts 9,543 4 0 ii Interest on the above amounts at 6 p. a. from 1st Dec. 1949 till the date of the suit.
The trial companyrt District Judge held that the plaintiff had companymitted breach of the companytract, and companysequently, the defendants had rightfully rescinded the companytract and debited Rs.
D 2 with the defendant Union of India through its Military Head Quarter, Madras Area, companytracting to supply onions for the period, October 1, 1949 to March 31, 1950, at the supply depots of the defendant in Bangalore, Cochin, Coimbatore and Wellington, at the rates mentioned in the Schedule to the agreement.
CRIASG, was the Officer sanctioning the companytract.
45 000 a month for the Bangalore Depot, 1 bs.
P. companytracts.
The original of Ex.
The plaintiff made unsuccessful demand for the payment of the amounts admittedly due to him for the onions he had supplied and also for the return of the security deposit which he had made under the companytract in question and also similar sums, due to him under earlier companytract with the defendant.
Modifying the decree of the trial companyrt, awarded to the plaintiff, decree for Rs.
whose endorsement under this letter reads as follows Acceptance sanctioned by Lt.
AA QMG Madras Area informing him that the sanction of the Area Command is accorded to the rescission of the companytract.
P 7 that from the 29th December 1949, the companytract stood rescinded.
1,915 0 0 b i Security Deposit under earlier companytracts.
4,300 0 0 d Security deposit under the earlier companytracts.
December 29, 1949 and the forfeiture of his security deposit of Rs.
The witness added whenever the G O. C was number available for companysultation, the witness used to pass orders in such matters in the exercise of his own discretion as per powers delegated to him.
This companymunication of recission Ex.
Col CR1ASC, to the plaintiff informing him about the rescission of the companytract w. e.f.
9,453 4 0 was payable to the plaintiff under the earlier companytracts.
3,045 0 0 e Claims towards reimbursements of the value of onions supplied to defendant otherwise than under the companytract.
Suri who had signed the letter Ex.
There after, on April 4, 1953, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.
D 38 produced by the witness, provides Under the provisions of FR I Pt.
4,300 0 0 ii Interest on the deposit at 6 p. a. 711 0 0 Rs.
After some companyrespondence, the plaintiff was informed by a letter Ex.
I Rule 34 b I hereby authorise the undermentioned officer to sign companymunications and documents of a financial character on my behalf upto the fullest extent under the rule in respect of A and Q matters, Lt.
10.928 5 0 c Security deposit under the suit companytract.
The only question that falls to be determined is whether the rescission of the companytract with effect from December 29, 1949 was made by a companypetent officer.
He produced Ex.
Reading the letters Ex.
On March 5, 1953, the defendant informed the plaintiffs bankers that a sum of Rs.
In the result, the District Judge passed a decree for Rs.
P 7 dated December 31, 1949, is a letter addressed by the Lt.
4300/ and also the proposal to purchase onions elsewhere at the risk of the plaintiff.
The original office numbere however was number produced.
9.453 4 0 b Amount claimed towards the value of the goods supplied under the suit companytract.
D 40 and P 7 together, it will be clear that the Lt.
3,000 0 0 g Interest on these sums 9,632 7 0 h Notice charges 50 0 0 Rs.
D 40, was examined as DW 4.
who companymunicated the rescission of the companytract to the plaintiff was exercising the powers of Area Commander in the matter.
4,950 0 0 f Profits which plaintiff had been prevented from making under the suit companytract.
45,359/ companysisting of these items Amount claimed as due under earlier Rs.
D.40 was signed by one J.H. Wadia, then a L t. Colonel, CRIASC.
D 38 bears the signature of Maj General, A.A. Rudra, the then Area Command.
31,609 5 4 Hence this appeal.
The supply was to be made in such quantities as may be required from time to time by the defendant, number exceeding 1 bs.
The witness also proved the companyy of the office numbere, D 39, bearing the initials of Lt.
On September 16, 1949, the plaintiff, K.H. Rao, entered into an agreement Ex.
S. Sarkaria, J. This is a defendants appeal directed against a judgment and decree of the Mysore High Court.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff did number supply any onions under the companytract after November 17, 1949, despite demands by the defendant.
The breach of the companytract, also gave a right to the Officer sanctioning the companytract, to rescind the companytract after written numberice.
Under Clause 7, the defendant was at liberty to make purchases of onions elsewhere at the risk of the plaintiff and recover on demand any excess companyt so incurred over the companytract price from the plaintiff.
The finding of the High Court has been seriously challenged before us by the appellent.
D 3 is a letter, dated September 16, 1949, addressed to the plaintiff respondent informing the latter that the Governor General had accepted his tender dated, August 3, 1949 for the supply of onions to various Depots including Bangalore Depot.
