LexSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS. versus SALEM STAINLESS STEEL SUPPLIERS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS. v. SALEM STAINLESS STEEL SUPPLIERS AND ORS. 3RD NOVEMBER, 1993 B [KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) Contract Act, 1872 : Sections 3 and 7-0ffer and acceptance-Steel Auth01jty of India-Price circular offering discount scheme-Issue of-Clari- fication sought by certain traders-Reply fum,ished by Authority-offer by the C traders-Exchange of correspondence-Authority-rejecting offer of traders-Ef- fect of-Held no concluded contract emerges and so benefit of discount not available. The appellant-Steel Authority of India issued a price circular dated March 17, 1989 offering a discount scheme with a view to give a thrust to b the off-take stainless steel of thinner gauges. Respondent No.3-a Treading Company, sought certain clarifications and the same were furnished by the Authority by its letter dated December .2, 1989. Thereafter six traders, including respondents 1 to 4, sent a letter E dated December 4, 1989 to the Authority stating that they had formed a group and wanted to avail the additional discount on the basis of their combined off-take as a group. They also suggested a formula for the distribution of the discount, on the basis of their combined off·take, amongst the individual members of the group. F The Authority sent a telegram on December 19, 19S9 In reply to the effect that the matter was still under consideration and till such time a final decision was taken the scheme regarding group off-take could not operate. The said traders addressed another letter to the Authority offer· Ing to withdraw their suggestion for the disbursement of the discount G amount in the manner suggested by them in their earlier letter. The Autnority by its letter dated 23.1.1990 reiterated the contents of its telegram and further informed that the suggestion made by the traders in their letter was not acceptable to the Authority as it was contrary to the scheme. H The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court contend· 578 .. STEELAUTIIORI1Y v. STEEL SUPPLIERS 579 ing that they had already stated lifting material and as such a direction may A be issued that the discount benefit be disbursed to them. The writ petition was allowed by a Single Judge primarily on the ground that the clarifica· tions given by the Authority by its letter dated December 2,1989 were bind· ing on the Authority. The appeals preferred by the Authority against the judgment of the B Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence these appeals. Allowing the appeal, ftcourt, HELD : 1. The price discount scheme under the circular dated March C 17,1989 was for "any customer" and not for "group of customers". The circular did not permit a group of customers not related to each other by constitution to avail the benefit of the scheme on the basis of their combined off-take. The respondents could not have availed the benefit of the scheme jointly unless and until the scheme as a whole was amended and made D applicable to all the customers of the Authority by issuing a fresh circular informing all concerned about the change in the scheme. (584-E] 2. It was for the first time on December 4, 1989 that the six traders made an offer and expressed their desire to avail the benefit of the circular on the basis of their combined off-take. Prior to that there was no com· E munication from the traders as a group to the Authority with regard to the admissibility of any such discount to them under the circular. The methodology suggested by the traders to share the discount was not en· visaged under the circular. The said method was even not in accordance with the letter dated December 2, 1989 written by the Authority. The Authority rejected the offer of the traders by its telegram dated December F 19, 1989 and the letter dated January 23, 1990. No concluded contract can, thus, be deciphered from the correspondence between the parties. (584-F-H & 585-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1051- 1054 of 1991. / / . G M.P. Sharma and S.R. Grover for the Appellant. B.D. Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H 580 · 1SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1993)SUPP.3S.G.R. A KULDIP SINGH, J. B Steel Authority of India (the Authority), the appellant herein, issued a price circular dated March 17, 1989 (the circular) offering a discount · scheme with a view to give a thrust to the off-take stainle
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.