Skip to content


Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Assam Iron and Steel Co. and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1173 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC174c; 1980Supp(1)SCC228; 1980(12)LC581(SC)
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi)
RespondentAssam Iron and Steel Co. and anr.
Excerpt:
.....to be paid to plaintiff as per agreement - respondent appointed as a controlled stockholder for iron and steel by virtue of agreement - appeal filed against reversal of part of decree - respondent was liable not only to pay cost of 306 tons of iron and steel which were actually lying on date in stock yard of respondent but also of 1101 tons of commodities in transit - appellant was not entitled to charge any higher amount resulting from increase of price for goods in transit - in pursuance of direct despatch programme goods were sent directly by producer to various registered stockists and never intended to be transferred to respondent - difference in price was not to be paid in respect of tonnage of entire stock but only that of stock lying in stockyard of respondent - goods were not..........your order, you will pay for all supplies into your controlled stock at such prices current at the time of delivery as will be notified by the government of india.7. for all supplies from controlled stock you will charge the buyer as follows:(i) such prices as may be notified by the government of india current at the time of delivery which shall include stockist's remunerations at the rate sanctioned by government based on services rendered and expenses incurred by you.(ii) such delivery charges as may be agreed between you and the iron and steel controller from time to time. in all cases of delivery for your own siding or ex. your yard, no delivery charges will be made.(iii) cutting and wastages charges, if incurred at a rate to be, agreed between you and the buyer.rates of stockists.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing in part a decree passed by the Single Judge of that Court acting in exercise of its original jurisdiction.

2. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 70,350.00 as interest from the defendant on account of the charges to be paid to the appellant as per agreement entered into between the parties which is Annexure 'A' to the plaint and by virtue of which the defendant was appointed as a controlled stockholder for iron and steel in Assam.

3. We have gone through the terms of the agreement particularly Clauses 6, 7 & 9 which are extracted below:

6. Notwithstanding the rates at which the producers might have booked your order, you will pay for all supplies into your Controlled Stock at such prices Current at the time of delivery as will be notified by the Government of India.

7. For all supplies from Controlled Stock you will charge the buyer as follows:

(i) Such prices as may be notified by the Government of India current at the time of delivery which shall include Stockist's remunerations at the rate sanctioned by Government based on services rendered and expenses incurred by you.

(ii) Such delivery charges as may be agreed between you and the Iron and Steel Controller from time to time. In all cases of delivery for your own siding or ex. your yard, no delivery charges will be made.

(iii) Cutting and Wastages charges, if incurred at a rate to be, agreed between you and the buyer.

Rates of Stockists remuneration are on the basis of cash payment to you at the time of delivery. Any question of credit facilities to buyers will be a matter for settlement between you and the buyers,

9. In the event of any rise or fall in prices as laid down in 6 above, you will pay to the Government or the Government will pey to you the different in value on your stocks calculated on the tonnage of stock lying in your stockyard at the time of such rise or fall. Such payment will be made within 14 days from the date when the statement of accounts has been certified by the Iron and Steel Controller.

4. It is common ground that the prices of iron and steel were raised by Rs. 50.00 per ton with effect from the 1st July, 1952. The stand taken by the Government was that the defendant/respondent was liable not only to pay the cost of 306 tons of iron and steel which were actually lying on that date in the stock-yard of the defendant at Gauhati but also of 1101 sons of the commodities which were when in transit. The High Court has given cogent reasons for accepting the case of the defendant that the appellant was not entitled to charge any higher amount resulting from the increase of the price for the goods in transit. It is the admitted case of the parties that in pursuance of the 'direct despatch programme', these goods were sent direct by the produced to the various registered stockists and were never intended to be transferred to or stored at the stockyard of the defendant. In this connection the High Court rightly pointed out that the difference in the price was not to be paid in respect of the tonnage of the entire stock, but only that of the stock lying in the dafendant's stock-yard. The High Court further held that even assuming that these goods were destined for the defendant's stockyard and should therefore be treated as nationally lying therein on the 30th June, 1952 for the purposes of Clause 9, even then they were not subject to revaluation under Clause 9. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons given by the High Court in reversing the judgment of the learned Trial Judge on this point.

5. After bearing learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of the 3 Court, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //