M/S. BHARAT BARREL & DRUM MFG. CO. versus L. K. BOSE & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 05-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/s. BHARAT BARREL & DRUM MFG. CO. 
v. 
L. K. BOSE & ORS. 
October 5, 1966 
· B 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J.M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955--Steel Control Order, 1956---Con• 
troUer cancelling allotment of steel sheets-In subsequent inquiry re/uit-
lng to record oral evidence-Natural justice whether 
vlolated--Error 
apparent on face of award, what is. 
The appellant company carried on the 
business 
of manufacturin1 
barrels and for that purpose required steel sheets. 
By reason of 
the 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Iron & Steel (Control) Order, 1956 
and diverse orders passed by the Iron and Steel Controller the appellant 
company could get supply of steel sheets only 
by obtaining release 
orders from the Controller on stockists and importers. The Controller 
would direct under such a release order an importer or a stockist to 
supply steel sheets to the appellant company at rates and on terms and 
conditions specified by him therein. By 
three such release orders of 
October 28 and 29, 1960 the Controller directed the 6th respondent to 
supply to the appellant a certain quantity of steel sheets at a specified 
rate. There was dispute between the appellant and the 6th respondent 
as to the quantity to be supplied and the rate of supply. The appellant 
claimed that it had already paid an excess sum of Rs. 7 lacs and odrl to 
the 6th respondent in respect of earlier release orders. On the dispute 
being referred to the Controller he ordered the 6th respondent to supply 
steel sheets to the appellant at the specified rate after making allowance 
for the excess of Rs. 7 lacs and odd already paid, He also ordered that if 
tbe appellant did not _Pay the price and the transaction was not complet· 
ed within a certain time owing to the fault of the appellant he would 
· allot the steel sheets to some other party. Owing to the persistence of 
differences with the 6th respondent the appellant could not carry out the 
transaction but instead filed a suit in the High 
Court. The Controller 
then cancelled the allotment in favour of the appellant. 
Against 
this 
order of cencellation the appellant filed 
a writ 
petition in the High 
Court. The High Court passed a con.sent order asking the Controller to 
'hear' the parties and decide whether the 
appellant was at fault in not 
lifting the goods. At the hearing the appellant wanted to examine a 
witness but the request was refused by the Controller. The Controller 
decided against the appellant. The appellant filed another writ petition in 
the High Court. The writ petition and the subsequent letters patent ai)peal 
filed by the appellant were both dismissed. The appellants came to this 
Court and contended : 
(I) The Controller by refusing to examine the appclla'1t's witn ... 
violated natural 1ustice. 
(2) On the question of 
the refund of the excess charges tho 
Controller's order suffered from an error apparent on 
the 
face of the record; and 
(3) The finding of the Controller that the appellant wanted lo 
pick and choose the goods was without evidence. 
HELD : (I) While considering the question of breach of the princl· 
pies of natural justice the court should not proceed as if there al"e any 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1967] l S.C.R. 
infiexible rules of natural justice of univer'3al application. The 
Court 
has to consider in each case whether in the light of the facts and circums-
tances of that case, the nature of the issues -invoJved in the inquiry~ the 
nature of the order passed and tbe interest affected thereby, a fair and 
reasonable opportunity of 
being heard was furnished by the person 
ai!'ectcd. 
A refusal to record oral evidence does not 
necessarily mean 
contravention of the rules of natural justice. 
[746 D; 747 G-H] 
Local Government Board v. Arlidge, [1915) A.C. 120, New Prakash 
Transport Co. Ltd. v. New Suwarna Traltsport Co. Ltd. [1957) S.C.R. 
98, Western India Match Co. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras, 
[1962) 1 
L.L.J. 629, De Verteuil v. Knaggs & Anr. [1918) 
A.C. 557, 
General 
Medical Council v. Spackman, [1943] A.C. 627. and Union of India v. 
T. R. Varma, [1958] S.C.R. 499, referred to. 
The Controller had beard the case of the parties through their coun-
sel. The witness was a director of the appellant company. 
Being pre-
sent at the bearing, he could have instructed counsel to state all that he 
wanted to depose. 
That not having been done the company could have 
no grievance of not h

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