Skip to content


Ambika Palayakat Company Vs. N. Kannappa Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 164 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad91; (1951)IIMLJ182
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7 - Schedule - Article 1
AppellantAmbika Palayakat Company
RespondentN. Kannappa Pillai
Appellant AdvocateM.K. Harihara Iyer, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovernment Pleader and ;K. Venkataraman, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....it is difficult to accept this contention in support of which no authority has been cited. the direct loss by reason of the breach of warranty is the loss in the value of the goods, as inferior goods were supplied according to the defendant's contention in place of superior goods for which it bargained with the plain-tiff. the damages for reputation may be further damages which it had suffered, but it cannot claim the amount to be taken into consideration in diminution of the price for which the plaintiff instituted the suit. these damages are not the direct result of the breach of warranty and they may be further damages within the meaning of section 59, sub-section (2) of the sale of goods act. the view taken therefore by the lower court that if the defendant wishes to prosecute.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Satyanarayana Rao, J.

1. I think the view taken by the lower Court regarding the payment of court-fee is correct. The suit was for recovery of the price of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant claimed damages under two heads: a sum of Rs. 2274-3-0 as damages for breach of warranty, namely, that the goods did not answer the description of the goods in respect of which the contract of sale was entered into; and a sum of Rs. 3000 as damages for loss of reputation. The lower Court held that the defendant was entitled to claim the sum of Rs. 2274-3-0 without paying court-fee as an amount which could be considered in diminution of the price that was claimed, but not the sum of Rs. 3000, and therefore it directed that the defendant should pay court-fee on Rs. 3000 if it intended to prosecute the claim as a set-off. It is contended that this sum of Rs. 3000 is also loss which has directly resulted by the breach of warranty. It is difficult to accept this contention in support of which no authority has been cited. The direct loss by reason of the breach of warranty is the loss in the value of the goods, as inferior goods were supplied according to the defendant's contention in place of superior goods for which it bargained with the plain-tiff. The damages for reputation may be further damages which it had suffered, but it cannot claim the amount to be taken into consideration in diminution of the price for which the plaintiff instituted the suit. These damages are not the direct result of the breach of warranty and they may be further damages within the meaning of Section 59, Sub-section (2) of the Sale of Goods Act. The view taken therefore by the lower Court that if the defendant wishes to prosecute the claim, it must pay court-fee on the sum of Rs. 3000 is correct.

2. The civil revision petition fails and isdismissed with costs payable to the Government Pleader. The petitioner is granted twoweeks' time from this date for payment of thecourt-fee on the sum of Rs. 3000.


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