Skip to content


Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jolly Steel Industries (P) Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract;Arbitration
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 1624 and 1624-A of 1979, D/- 8-5-1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC1346; 1980(12)LC698(SC)
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi)
RespondentJolly Steel Industries (P) Ltd. and ors.
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890 section 102 &105: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly, jj] private defence - commencement and continuance of right held, right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat to commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until that there is that reasonable apprehension. the right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues.section 102 &105:] private defence held, a plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. while considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. in..........disposing of both the appeals. they stem from an award in a dispute between a contractor and the railway department of tie union of india, steel scrap was to have been supplied as per the contract to the respondent. but disputes having arisen between the parties a reference was made to arbitration. an award followed. but it became the subject matter of a challenge. these two appeals have spiralled up to this court. we are not narrating the facts in further detail which would have been necessary had we the need to investigate the issues and pronounce thereon. but we have narrowed down the scope of the controversy and although the award upholds the respondent's right to receive the entire quantity of scrap we have persuaded the counsel on both sides and their parties through them to.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. We life pronouncing a short judgment disposing of both the appeals. They stem from an award in a dispute between a contractor and the Railway Department of tie Union of India, Steel scrap was to have been supplied as per the contract to the respondent. But disputes having arisen between the parties a reference was made to arbitration. An award followed. But it became the subject matter of a challenge. These two appeals have spiralled up to this Court. We are not narrating the facts in further detail which would have been necessary had we the need to investigate the issues and pronounce thereon. But we have narrowed down the scope of the controversy and although the award upholds the respondent's right to receive the entire quantity of scrap we have persuaded the Counsel on both sides and their parties through them to adopt a middle course. We must state that the advocates have very helpful in bringing to an end a litigation which otherwise could have had & protracted course A minimal dispute, which survived, has been left to us for decision and we decide that also in this short judgment.

2. We direct that half the quantity of scrap covered by the contract for supply shall be supplied at the place appointed in the contract within three months from to-day by the Railway Department. Counsel for the Union of India raised only a minor objection that some quantities of steel scrap were lying in different places and the respondent must be asked to bear the cost of transportation. We think it unjust to make the respondent liable for such expense and direct the Railway Department to make available half the total quantity stipulated under the contract at the place fixed in the contract at the expense of the Union of India.

3. The only surviving issue turns on payment of interest claimed by the respondent. We are not satisfied that the circumstances of the case or the statutory provisions in this behalf justify award of interest to the respondent. We negative that claim.

4. The other question if regarding the price which must be the basis for fixing the damages for non delivery of half the quantity of scrap covered by the contract. We fix the damages on the basis of the price ruling as at the date on which delivery ought to have been made, according to the contract. This price will have to be fixed by the execution Court after giving an opportunity for the parties to lead evidence. The time for delivery of the half quantity as directed above is three months.

5. We dispose of the appeals as above.

6. Pursuant to an earlier order of this Court at the time of the granting of leave, we direct that the appellant will pay costs of the respondents.


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