LexKESHAVLAL LALLUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS versus LALBHAI TRIKUMLAL MILLS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
'
~ ..
I •
S.C.R.
ilUPREME COURT REPORTS
KESHAVLAL LALLUBHAI PATEL
AND OTHERS
v.
213
LALBHAI TRIKUMLAL MILLS LTD.
(BHAGWATI, J. L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.)
Contract-Extension of time for performance-Agreement of
parties-Requirements of proof-Agreement, vague and uncertain-
Binding nature-Indian Contract Act, I872 (IX of I872), ss.929, 63 .
•
The appellants entered into a contract with the respondent
mills for the purchase of certain goods in which the time for
delivery was fixed for the months of September and October, 1942.
Before the expiry of the time fixed there was a strike in the mills
and the respondent wrote a letter to the appellants on August 15,
1942, that in view of the strike and the political situation,
the delivery time of all the pending contracts should be auto-
matically understood as extended for the period the working of
the mills was stopped and until the normal state of affairs
recurred. Though the strike came ti> an end the respondent
declined to give·delivery of the goods on the ground that the
contracts were void.
In the suit filed by the appellants ·on
January 9, 1946, for damages for breach of the contract the
respondent pleaded that there was no agreement between the
parties with regard to the extension of time and so the suit was
barred by limitation. The appellants' case and their evidence
which was consistent with the conduct of the parties at the rele-
vant time only showed definitely that they had orally agreed to
the proposal made by the respondent for extension of time for
the period during which the mills would remain closed, and as
regards the second condition ref~rred to in the respondent's letter
dated August 15, 1942, "till the normal state of affairs recurs"
(which was vague and uncertain), the evidence did not show that
there was an acceptance by the appellants of the said condition.
The question was whether there was an enforceable agreement
for extension of time for performance of the contract within•the
melning of the Indian Contract Act :
Held,
( l) An extension of timJ! for the performance of the
contract under s. 63 of the Indian Contract Act must be based
upon an agreement between the parties, and ii would not be open
to the promisee by his unilateral act to extend the time for per-
formance of his own accord for his own benefit. Such an agreement
need not necessarily be"reduced to writing and can be proved by
oral evidence or by evidence of conduct.
.
(2) The respondent's proposal for extension of time contained
in tfi.e let:ter dated August 15, 1942, was subject to two condi-
tions, and the fact that the second condition was vague and
,.
•
March zr.
-
•
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTli
[1959]
uncertain does not necessarily show that it was intended to be
treated as a meaningless surplusage. As there was no acceptance
Keshavlal Lallu- by the appellants of the second condition there was no valid or
bhai Patel
binding agreement for extension of time under s. 63 of the Indian
"v.
Contract Act.
L•lbhai Trikumlal
Nicolene Ld. v. Simmonds, [1953] l Q. B. 543, •distinguished .
..1W-ills Ltd.
1
(3) In any event as the conditions were so vague and uncer-
tain that it was not possible to ascertain definitely the period for ,
which the time for the performance of the contract was really
intena.d to be extended, the agreement for extension was void
under s. 29 of the Indian Contract Act.
,
Scammel (G.) and Nephew, Ld. v. Ousto1' (H. C. and J. G.)
Queston, [1941] A. C. 251, relied on.
.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 78 of 1954.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April
17, 1950, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
642 of 1949, arising out of the judgment and decree
dated July 30, 1949, of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Ahmedabad in Suit No. 10 of 1946.
Purshottam Tricumdas, M. H. Chhatarpati and
S. S. Shukla, for the appellants.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India
aml I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
1958. March 21.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Gajendragadkar J.
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This is an appeal by the
plaintiffs against the decree passed by the High Court
of Bombay dismissing their suit to recover from the
defendant Rs. 1,52,334-8-9 as damages for breach of
con'tract for non-delivery of certain cotton goods. 'fhe
-
•
•
Plaintiffs' claim had been decreed by the trial court •{
but on appeal it has been dismisseExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.