Aslhing Alias Lhingjanong Vs. L.S. John and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Civil Appeal No. 1189 of 1982|
|Judge|| E.S. Venkataramiah,; O. Chinnappa Reddy and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1984SC988; 1983(2)SCALE813; (1984)1SCC205; 1SCR863; 1984(16)LC154(SC)|
|Appellant||Aslhing Alias Lhingjanong|
|Respondent||L.S. John and ors.|
|Appellant Advocate|| S. Rangarajan and; S.K. Nandy, Advs|
|Respondent Advocate|| A.K. Nag, Adv.|
|Prior history||From the Judgment and Order dated December 18, 1981 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1980|
.....act means merely "for inspection of the court" and the court cannot base its findings on the contents of such documents. (v)the court will be entitled under illustration (h) to s. 114 of the evidence act to draw adverse inference for refusal to answer question put under s. 207a(6) to the accused. (vi)the rule of interpretation which is applicable was stated by lord radcliffe: "the meaning which these words ought to be understood to bear is not to be ascertained by any process akin to speculation. the primary duty of a court of law is to find the natural meaning of the words in the context in which they occur, the context including any other phrases in the act which may throw light on the sense in which the makers of the act used the words in dispute." re macmanaway in re, ..........determination is whether at the time when respondent no. 1 filed his nomination paper he held a subsisting contract with the government for widening the plp road. while it is true that there was such a contract in existence prior to 30 .11.1979, respondent no. 1 wrote a letter on 30.11.1979 to the concerned executive engineer stating that he was closing the said contract. the last date for filing nomination was 10.12.1979. it is argued that the contents of the said letter does not have the effect of putting an end to the contract. after going through the contents of the letter it is absolutely clear that the contractor unilaterallyput an end to the contract and informed the department concerned accordingly and also he had resigned from the contractor's list of pwd manipur. thus after.....
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. In this election appeal the only point for determination is whether at the time when respondent No. 1 filed his nomination paper he held a subsisting contract with the Government for widening the PLP road. While it is true that there was such a contract in existence prior to 30 .11.1979, respondent No. 1 wrote a letter on 30.11.1979 to the concerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing the said contract. The last date for filing nomination was 10.12.1979. It is argued that the contents of the said letter does not have the effect of putting an end to the contract. After going through the contents of the letter it is absolutely clear that the contractor unilaterallyput an end to the contract and informed the Department concerned accordingly and also he had resigned from the contractor's list of PWD Manipur. Thus after this letter the contract came to an end by breach and the contract was no longer subsisting. Mr. Rangarajan has submitted some very nice and delicate questions for consideration. One of them being that until and unless the letter is accepted by the Authority the contract would continue and thus the respondent would suffer from the disqualification. In our opinion having regard to the contents of the letter it is not , possible to accept the argument of Mr. Rangarajan that the contract was subsisting. The acceptance of the letter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the contract although the breach may give rise to a cause on action for damages. No other point is raised before us. We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed without any order as to costs.