THE HINDUSTAN FOREST COMPANY versus LAL CHAND AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 19-08-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
563 
allowed the appellant's application for the renewal of 
z959 
his lease under r. 47 of the Mineral Concession RulesR . 1-v 
k 
.. 
. 
a1a o 
en ala~,,. 
of 1949. The argument is wholly untenable. That 
v. 
rule provides that a mining lease granted by a private 
s1ate of 
person shftll be subject to certain conditions therein Andhra Pradesh 
specified. Th0 first condition thus laid down is that 
the term of the lease should be renewed at the option of 
the lessee for one period not exceeding the duration of 
the original lease. The effect of this rule is, as it were, 
to insert statutorily some new terms in the lease itself. 
In other words, this rule does not do anything more 
than add some terms to the lease. 
When, however, 
the lease is determined under the second proviso, these 
terms must also fall with it. 
No other point has been urged before us and for 
reasons stated above, we think that these appeals 
should be dismissed with costs and we order accord-
ingly. 
Appeals dismissed. 
THE HINDUSTAN FOREST COMPANY 
v. 
LAL CHAND AND OTHERS 
(S. R. DAS, C.J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO and M. HIDAYATULI,AH, JJ.) 
Limitation-M ietual accO'unt--Reciprocal demands-Contract 
for supply of goods-Delivery of goods and payments, whether 
independent obligations-] ammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, I995 
(]ammu and Kashmir IX of r995), art. rr5-Indian Limitation 
Act, z908 (9 of r908), art. 8 5· 
Under a contract for the sale of goods, the buyer paid an 
advance. amount t~~ards the price of the goods to be supplied 
and yanous quantities of goods were thereafter delivered by the 
., 
sellers. The buyer from time to time made various other 
payments towards the price of the goods after they had been 
delivered. The last delivery of goods was made on June 23, 
1947, and the suit was brought on October ro, 1950, by the sellers 
for the balance of the price due for goods delivered. The sellers 
pleaded that the suit was within time and relied on art. IIS of 
the Jammu and Ka~hmir Limitation Act under which the period 
of limitation was six years for a suit " for the balance due on a 
mutual, open and current account, where there have been re-
ciprocal demands between the parties. " 
Das C. J 
I959 
August x9· 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) 
'959 
Held, that art. IIS was not applicable to the case as there 
-
was no mutual account based on reciprocal demands. The 
Hindustan Forest payment made by the buyer after deliveries had been given to it 
Company 
were in discharge of the obligations to pay the price due on 
v. 
account of these deliveries; the amount paid in advance was paid 
Lal Chand 
under the contract in discharge of obligations to arise , none of 
such payments created an independent obligation in the sellers 
towards the buyer. 
Sarkeir ]. 
Tea Financing Syndicate Ltd. v. Chandrakamal Bazbaruah, 
(1930) I.L.R. 58 Cal. 649, approved, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
161 of 1955. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 4th 
Jeth 2011, of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 
Appeal No. 1of2009, arising out of the judgment and 
decree dated the 2nd Magh 2008, of the said High 
Court in original suit No. 40 of 2007. 
S. K. Kapur and N. H. Hingorani, for the appellant. 
Bhawani Lal and K. P. Gupta, for the respondents. 
1959. August 19. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by · 
SARKAR J.-This appeal arises out of a suit filed in 
the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir for recovery 
of price of goods sold and delivered. The only point 
involved in it is whether the suit was governed by 
art. 115 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act. 
The courts below have held, and this has not been 
disputed in this appeal, that if that article did not 
apply, the suit would fail on the ground of limitation. 
Sometime in November 1946, the parties entered 
into an agreement in writing for the supply by the 
sellers, the respondents, to the buyer, the appellant, 
of 5,000 maunds of maize, 500 maunds of wheat and 
100 maunds of Dal at the rates and times specified. 
The agreement stated that on the date it had been 
made the buyer had paid to the sellers Rs. 3,000 and 
had agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000 within 
ten or twelve days as advance and the balance due for 
the price of goods delivered, after the expiry of every 
month. It is admitted that the said sum of Rs. 10,000 
was later paid by the buyer to the sellers. 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

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