GANGA SARAN versus RAM CHARAN RAM GOPAL

GANGA SARAN versus RAM CHARAN RAM GOPAL

The contract was not contingent on the supply of goods to the respondents by the Victoria Mills; the words concerning supply by the Mills merely described the process and did not make delivery contingent upon that event. The respondents failed to show impossibility beyond their control, and as such, there was a clear breach of contract entitling the appellant to damages. The doctrine of frustration under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act does not apply when non-performance is due to a party’s own default.

Parties
Appellant: Ganga Saran; Respondent: Ram Charan Ram Gopal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 November 1951
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Allahabad, Reversing the Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Breach of Contract, Damages for Non Delivery
Contract Law Frustration of Contract Breach of Contract Damages for Non Delivery

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ganga Saran

Appellant

Ram Charan Ram Gopal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Allahabad, Reversing the Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was frustrated due to non-receipt of goods from the Victoria Mills under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were liable for damages for breach of contract for non-delivery of the goods

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was not contingent on the supply of goods to the respondents by the Victoria Mills; the words concerning supply by the Mills merely described the process and did not make delivery contingent upon that event. The respondents failed to show impossibility beyond their control, and as such, there was a clear breach of contract entitling the appellant to damages. The doctrine of frustration under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act does not apply when non-performance is due to a party’s own default.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside.
  • Decree of the trial court restored.