The appellant denied all the material allegations made by the respondent in its plaint.
The written statement filed by the appellant was very vague and general in terms and numberspecific or detailed pleas had been set out by the appellant in its pleading.
The said appeal was heard by S.R. Das Gupta and Bachawat, JJ.
It appears that at the trial the respondent had also relied upon s. 65 of the Indian Contract Act in support of its claim.
Meanwhile, on April 7, 1944, the respondent was requested by the Sub Divisional Officer, Arambagh, to submit its estimate for the companystruction of a kutcha road, guard room, office, kitchen and room for clerks at Arambagh for the Department of Civil Supplies.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the January 4, 1957, of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Appeal From Original Decree No.
He held that the respondents claim against the appellant was, however, justified under s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act, and he came to the companyclusion that the said claim was number barred by limitation.
2,322/8 was submitted in that behalf to the Assistant Director of Civil Supplies on April 27, 1944.
However, G.K. Mitter, J., who tried the suit, framed five material issues on the pleadings and recorded his findings on them.
This finding was in favour of the appellant.
It pleaded that there was numberprivity of companytract between the respondent and itself and it denied its liability for the entire claim.
Accordingly the respondent companyplete the said companystruction and its bill for Rs.
Sen, P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for the appellant.
He also rejected the plea of the appellant that the liability of the Province of Bengal had number devolved upon the appellant under the provisions of the Indian Independence Rights, Property and Liabilities Order 1947.
In the present suit the respondent claimed that the two bills submitted by it in which the respondent had claimed Rs.
The two learned Judges who heard the said appeal delivered separate though companycurring judgments and substantially companyfirmed the material finding recorded by the trial companyrt.
was delivered by Sarkar, J. GAJENDRAGADKAR,J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent K. Mondal Sons against the appellant the State of West Bengal on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court claiming a sum of Rs.
2,322/8/ and Rs.
In the result the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed.
This work also was companypleted by the respondent in due companyrse and for the said work a bill for Rs.
The appellant disputed the companyrectness and validity of the said decree by preferring an appeal to the Calcutta High Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction.
17,003/ was submitted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents case was that on February 8, 1944, it offered to put up certain temporary storage godowns at Arambagh in the District of Hooghly for the use of the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Bengal and that the said offer was accepted by the said department by a letter dated February 12, 1944.
Accordingly the respondent companypleted the said companystructions and a bill for Rs.
19,325/ for works done by it for the appellant.
This claim was made out in two ways.
December 5.
39,476/ was duly paid in July 1944.
C. Chatterjee, A.N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, for the respondents.
The respondent had lawfully done such works number intending to act gratuitously in that behalf and the appellant had enjoyed the benefit thereof.
The result was that the respondents claim was upheld under s. 70 of the Contract Act and a decree for the amount claimed by it was accordingly passed in its favour.
286 of 1958.
He held that having regard to the provisions of s. 175 3 of the Act there was numbervalid and binding companytract between the respondent and the appellant for the companystruction of huts and sheds at Khakul and Arambagh.
It alleged that the requests in pursuance of which the respondent claims to have made the several companystructions were invalid and unauthorised and did number companystitute a valid companytract binding the appellant under s. 175 3 of the Government of India Act, 1935 hereafter called the Act .
The appellant then applied for a certificate to companye to this Court but the High Court rejected its application.
155 of 1953.
Thus, on these three points the findings of the trial judge were against the appellant.
The learned judge held that s. 65 did number apply to the facts of the case and so the finding on this point was in favour of the appellant.
17,003/ respectively had remained unpaid and that was the basis of the present claim.
It was alleged that the works in question had been done by the respondent in terms of a companytract entered into between the parties and as such the appellant was liable to pay the amount due for the said works.
The Judgment of Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo and Ayyrangar, JJ.,
In the alternative it was alleged that if the companytract in question was invalid then the respondents claim fell under s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. The Judgment of Sarkar and Das Gupta, JJ.
Thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer, Arambagh required the companystruction of certain storage sheds at Khanakul and the Assistant Director of Civil Supplies wrote to the respondent on April 18, 1944, asking it to proceed with the companystruction of the said storage sheds.
The respondent alleged that the Additional Deputy Director of Civil Supplies visited Arambagh on April 20, 1944, and instructed the respondent to proceed with the companystruction in accordance with the estimates submitted by it.
Thereupon the appellant moved this Court for a special certificate and on obtaining it has companye to this Court and the principal point which has been urged before us by Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellant is that s. 70 of the Contract Act does number apply to the present case.
