Skip to content


Jwarmal Shivanath Malu Vs. Haji Ibrahim Kassam Uplitwala, Firm by Muktyar Haji Ganisalai Muhammad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Contract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 493 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad768
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20
AppellantJwarmal Shivanath Malu
RespondentHaji Ibrahim Kassam Uplitwala, Firm by Muktyar Haji Ganisalai Muhammad
Appellant AdvocateRow and Reddy
Respondent AdvocateL.V. Krishnaswami Iyer, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredBiddell Brothers v. E. Clemens Horst Company
Excerpt:
- .....shipping documents upon delivery of the hops on board the ship at the port of shipment, the buyer's right to reject the hops remaining unimpaired if upon arrival they were found upon examination not to be in conformity with the contract.4. under section 17, indian sale of goods act, in case of a contract for sale by sample, there is an implied condition.(a) that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality;(b) that the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample;(c) that the goods shall be free from any defect rendering them unmerchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.under section 41, indian sale of goods act, where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not.....
Judgment:

Mack, J.

1. The petitioner is the defendant, a merchant of Tasgaon in Bombay Province. The plaintiff in the suit does business in Calicut and ordered a quantity of 'New Chillies Chatni beat, dried, thin red' after approval by sample from the defendant. The contract was admittedly on8 known as C. I. F. and F. O. R. Tasgaon. On the arrival of chillies in Calicut, the plaintiff according to his plaint allegations, found on examination that the chillies were of inferior quality and not according to sample. He had a survey made by the Chamber of Commerce of Calicut whose report, he said, would bear out his allegations. After notification to the defendant, who made no response, the chillies were sold at the risk of the defendant. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 2900-4-0 by a hundi to the defendant before the goods were despatched. The suit was filed in the District Munsif's Court of Calicut to recover a loss of about Rs. 1500/-. The District Munsif of Calicut held that he had no jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Bombay Presidency. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that part at least of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calicut Court which was competent to entertain the suit, the merits of which have not been gone into.

2. There can be no doubt that had the chillies been sent according to sample, the Bombay Court alone would have jurisdiction as the cause of action arose wholly in that province Parthasarathy v. The Calcutta Glass and Silicate Works (1936) Ltd., : (1948)2MLJ101 , is a Bench decision of this High Court on which reliance is placed for this position. This decision, however, makes no reference to a case such as the present, where goods not according to sample were despatched from outside on F. O. R. contract to this Province.

3. Mr. Ramachandran for the petitioner zelies on an English decision in Biddell Brothers v. E. Clemens Horst Company, 1911 1 K. B. 214, which gives him no assistance. That was a case of a contract for sale of one hundred bales of hops of a particular quality to be shipped provided the buyer paid at certain rate C. J. F. to London, Liverpool, or Hall, Terms net cash. The buyer contended that he was not bound to pay for the hops until their arrival at their destination and a reasonable opportunity had been allowed to him for examination to see if they were in conformity with the contrast. It was held that the seller was entitled to payment against shipping documents upon delivery of the hops on board the ship at the port of shipment, the buyer's right to reject the hops remaining unimpaired if upon arrival they were found upon examination not to be in conformity with the contract.

4. Under Section 17, Indian Sale of Goods Act, in case of a contract for sale by sample, there is an implied condition.

(a) that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality;

(b) that the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample;

(c) that the goods shall be free from any defect rendering them unmerchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.

Under Section 41, Indian Sale of Goods Act, where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasanable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract. And under Section 43, unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer and he refuses to accept them, having the right so to do, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.

5. The law presumes delivery to the buyer on a C. I. F. or F. O. R. contract at the time of consignment on the basis that goods according to sample are being consigned. If the seller fails to supply goods according to sample or dishonestly supplies goods of another description, the buyer in law has a right to refuse acceptance. This being the case, it cannot possibly be said that no part of the cause of action arose in Calicut where the plaintiff made the discovery that the goods consigned were not according to sample. The District Munsif of Calicut has clear jurisdiction to try the suit resulting from damages allegedly reason of the breach of the implied contract underlying the C. I. F. or F. O. R. contract, that the goods supplied would be in accordance with the particular sample or description. The learned advocate for the petitioner urges that if the property in the goods did not pass to the plaintiff, as they were not according to the sample, he should have returned them to the defendant in Bombay and that he had no right to sell the chillies. But under Section 43, Indian Sale of Goods Act, if the goods were not according to the sample he had a right to refuse acceptance; he was not bound to return them to the seller and it was only sufficient for him to sand intimation to the seller that he refused acceptance. It cannot possibly be said that by selling the goods with notice to the defendant, the plaintiff in the circumstances took delivery of the goods and thereby destroyed his right to sue in the Calicut Court. It would be strange in law that if a merchant in Madras, orders advertised goods, pays for them and finds on opening the consignment sent to him that they are not according to sample or of an entirely different description, he should be compelled to go to the Court in which the consignee lives and sue him there. I have no hesitation in expressing my agreement with the finding of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge that in cases of this kind, a part of the cause of action arises in Madras and a suit for damages would lie in the Court in the Madras Province, The petition is dismissed with costs.


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