B. C. MOHINDRA versus THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 794 · Decided: 20-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B. C. MOHINDRA 
v. 
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR 
November 20, 1968 
[S. M. SIKRI AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 s. 97-Scope of-Agreements required 
to be in writing-List of bidders at auction signe_d by lvinning bidder and 
Board Chairman-Board passing resolution confirming respondent's bid-
Whether contract anwunted to written agreement. 
At an auction held on April 8, 1950 of the theka !for collecting Tahba-
A 
B 
zari dues of a Mandi, the appellant's bid was accepted. At the time of 
auction a meeting of the respondent Board was also held in 
which the c 
auction was confirmed by resolution and the usual conditions relating to 
the payment of auction money were amended to provide for payment in 
four instalments. The appellant was asked to execute and complete an 
agreement in favour of the respondent according to the conditions and 
rules, but he 'failed to do so. In view of this and the fact that he failed 
to pay the second instalment, the respondent Board cancelled the appel-
lant's lheka and reauctioned it. 
After taking into account the money re-
ceived from the reauction and the instalment paid by the defendant, the 
D 
Board sued the appellant for the recovery of the balance 
and future 
interests. 
One question considered by the Trial Court was whether the provi-
sions of s. 97 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, which required cer-
tain contracts made by or on behalf of the Board be in writing, had been 
complied with. The Trial Court found that there was a list of bidders at 
the auction held on 8th April, 1950 which bore the signature of the 
E 
appellant and of the Chairman of the respondent Board; it therefore con-
sidered that the contract was a written contract and decreed the suit. In 
appeal the High Court remanded the case as it took the view that the 
qUt>.;tion of the applicability of and compliance with s. 97 df the Act had 
not been dealt with. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : On the facts, it was clearly proved that there was a contract 
in writing within the meaning of the proviso to s. 97 (I) and the provi-
sions of sub. s. (2). The signed list of bidders and the resolution of the 
Board passed at the time of the auction constituted a contract in writing 
within the meaning of s. 97 df the Act. There was therefore no justifica-
tion in the High Court remanding the case. [797 H; 798 F--Gl 
Union of India v. Rallia Ram, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 164, 173, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CiviJ Appeal No. 1036 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 15, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 
268 of 1963. 
C. B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant. 
R. .K. Garg, D. K. Agarwal and M. V. Goswami, for the res-
pondent. 
F 
G 
H 
I 
• 
' 
~ 
,• ,, -., 
, 
A 
• 
' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
P·ERSPECTIVE PUBLICATIONS v. MAHARASHTRA (Grover, J.) 
795 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This is an appeal by special leave, and while grant-
ing it this Court confined it only to the point arising under s. 97 
of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916-hereinafter referred to as the 
Act. 
The facts relevant to the point are as follows : The Munici-
pal Board, Saharanpur, respondent before us and hereinafter 
referred to as the plaintiff-brought a suit for the recovery of 
Rs. 12,044/-/9 and future interest upto the date of realisation 
from B. C. Mohindra, appellant before us and hereinafter refer-
red to as the defendant. In brief, the case of the plaintiff was 
that there was an auction on March 29, 1960, of the theka for 
collecting tahbazari dues of the mandi in Mazahir Gang alias Gan j 
J adid, Saharanpur, for one year from April l, 1950 to March 
31, 1951, subject to the conditions of sale entered in the amend-
ed sale proclamation. 
The defendant bid Rs. 40,000/- subject 
to the confirmation by the Board. The Board did not confirm the 
auction sale, and on April 8, 1960, the tahbazari was re-auc-
tioned. 
The defendant bid Rs. 53,025/-. At -Ole time of the 
auction sale a meeting of the Board was also held in which the 
auction aforesaid was confirmed under Resolution No. 26 dated 
April 8, 1950, in the presence of the defendant, and only the 
condition relating to the payment of auction money was amended 
to provide for payment in four instalments. The defendant had 
to deposit II 4th of the bid on April 8, 1950. 
He failed to 
deposit this instalment on April 8, 1950, but on April 10, 1950, 
he d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.