SATYABRATA GROSE versus MUGNEERAM BANGUR & CO., AND ANOTHER.

SATYABRATA GROSE versus MUGNEERAM BANGUR & CO., AND ANOTHER.

The requisition orders did not render performance impossible as required by section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. No time limit was stipulated for fulfillment; the order was of a temporary character, war conditions existed at the time of contract, and the fundamental basis of the agreement was not destroyed. Thus, the contract was not frustrated.

Parties
Appellant: Satyabrata Ghose; Respondent: Mugneeram Bangur & Co.; Pro Forma Respondent: Bejoy Krishna Roy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 November 1953
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree Dated 6th September 1950 of the High Court at Calcutta in Appellate Decree No. 318 of 1949; Earlier Appeals From District Judge, 24 Parganas (title Appeal No. 8 of 1948), and Additional Subordinate Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, Judgment Dated 10th October 1947.
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Frustration, Supervening Impossibility, Sale of Land, Section 56 Indian Contract Act
Contract Law Property Law Doctrine of Frustration Supervening Impossibility Sale of Land Section 56 Indian Contract Act

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satyabrata Ghose

Appellant

Mugneeram Bangur & Co.

Respondent

Bejoy Krishna Roy

Pro Forma Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree Dated 6th September 1950 of the High Court at Calcutta in Appellate Decree No. 318 of 1949; Earlier Appeals From District Judge, 24 Parganas (title Appeal No. 8 of 1948), and Additional Subordinate Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, Judgment Dated 10th October 1947.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of land was discharged by supervening circumstances (requisition orders) rendering performance impossible under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The requisition orders did not render performance impossible as required by section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. No time limit was stipulated for fulfillment; the order was of a temporary character, war conditions existed at the time of contract, and the fundamental basis of the agreement was not destroyed. Thus, the contract was not frustrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta set aside
  • Judgments and decrees of the trial court and lower appellate court restored