IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI, INDIA

SUIT FILED UNDER ARTICLE 133 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA READ
WITH ORDER XV RULE I OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES.

CIVIL SUIT NO. XXX/2015

RAMLAL & CO………….…………...........................................................................APPELLANTS

V.

AMBA NEWSPAPER LTD……..…………………...…..…...………...………...……RESPONDENTS

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... vii
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................................... viii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................... ix
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................................... 1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF............................................................................................................................. 3

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes:

 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

 The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Cases:

 P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs.Express Newspapers Ltd.,

Bombay, AIR1968SC741

iii
iv
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The dispute arises out of a contract between the Ramlal & Co. and Amba Newspaper Ltd.

Entered into on November 21, 2004. The terms were written in writing in a form of letter which

stated all the specifics. The letter was written by the respondent to the appellant in which they

mentioned that they’ll be purchasing 500 tons of Russian Newsprint and provided with the

description.

The document showed that ANL agreed to buy from RL & Co. 500 tons of Russian newsprint in

reels at Rs. 1000 per lb., ex-wharf, Bombay and to take delivery of the goods on the payment of

Rs. 25,60,000. At the same time RL & Co. agreed to buy from ANL 415 tons of Russian

newsprint in sheets then lying in the godown in Madras at 9 annas 6 pies per lb. upon the term

that ANL would pay the insurance charge and also the interest at 5 per cent per annum on an

amount equivalent to the price of the goods calculated at 8 annas per lb. The parties on

December 10, 2004, orally agreed that instead of 500 tons the respondent would buy 300 tons

and appellant would instead of 415 would buy 300 tons of newsprint in sheet. On basis of this

terms of the contract dated November 21, 2004 would stand varied accordingly. On December

25, 2004, the respondent took delivery of 300 tons of newsprint in reels on payment of Rs.

3,18,706-9-10 and a sum of Rs. 57,816-13-2 remained due to the appellants on account of the

price of these goods. From November 20, 2004 up to February 27, 1952, the appellants took

delivery of 122324 lbs. of newsprint in sheets on payment of Rs. 63,032-15-9 to the respondent.

Subsequently, the appellants refused to take delivery of the balance 547501 lbs. of newsprint in

sheets. Counsel for the parties agreed before us that March 29, 2005 was the date when the

appellants repudiated the contract. On April 21, 2005 after giving notice to the appellants the

respondent resold the balance goods to one G. R. Lala at 6 1/2 annas per lb.

v
On April 18, 1952, the appellants filed in the High Court of Madras C.S. No. 175 of 1952

claiming from the respondent Rs. 57,816-13-2 on account of the balance price of 300 tons of

newsprint in reels and interest thereon. The respondent admitted the claim for the balance price.

On July 30, 2005, the respondent filed in the High Court of Madras C.S. No. 262 of

1952claiming a decree for Rs. 62,266-13-2 on account of the balance price of 122324 lbs., the

deficiency on resale of 547501 lbs. of the newsprint in sheets, interest and insurance charges

after setting off the sum of Rs. 57,816-13-2 due to the appellants.

The two suits were tried by the trial court. Trial court dismissed C.S No. 175 of 2005 and

decreed C.S. No. 262 of 2005. From these two decrees, the appellant filed two appeals in the

high court of Madras. A division bench of the high court dismissed the two appeals.

The present appeals have been filed on certificates granted by the High Court.

vi
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent most humbly submits that this Honorable Supreme Court of India has the

inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the present case.

The Respondent has approached the Supreme Court of India through an appeal, C.A. No.

XXX/2015 under article 133 of the Constitution of India, Read with Order XV Rule I of the

Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

vii
 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

ISSUE: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE

DAMAGES.

viii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE

DAMAGES.

It is submitted that in the present matter, because the appellant has repudiated the contract

because of which the respondent has suffered a lot as well as there was no as such fixed time

under the contract of sale for acceptance of the goods, therefore, the respondent are entitled to

claim the damages as in the difference between the contract price and the market price on the

date of the refusal by the buyer to accept the goods i.e 21 April, 2005.

ix
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE

DAMAGES.

In law, damages are money claimed by, or ordered to be paid to, a person as compensation for

loss or injury.1 According to Oxford dictionary the term ‘damages’ are defined as ‘financial

compensation for loss or injury’. In context of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 damages are

referred in context to breach of contract i.e. a party's failure to perform some contracted-for or

agreed upon act, or his failure to comply with a duty imposed by law which is owed to another or

to society. Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or negotiated for

exchange is not respected by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or

interference with the other party's performance.

Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 18722, states that the party who suffers by a breach is

entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or

damage caused to him.

In the present matter, as per the facts on December 10, 2004, both the parties orally agreed that

instead of 500 tons the respondent would buy 300 tons of the newspaper in reels and that instead

of 415 tons the appellants would buy 300 tons of newspaper in sheets. According from

November 20, 2005 up to February appellant took delivery of 122324 lbs. of newsprint in sheets

on payment. Subsequently, the appellants refused to take delivery of the balance and on March

29, 2005 the repudiated the contract.

1
Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)
2
The Indian Contract Act, 1872

1
This repudiation of the contract by the appellant resulted in loss as if the appellant would have

not bought then atleast somebody else would have bought that would have given some benefit to

the seller i.e the respondent. But here in spite of orally changing the contract also the appellant

repudiated and refused to accept the goods which in turn caused loss to the respondent.

According to the Section 54 of The Sale of Goods Act3,

The Supreme Court in the case P.S.N.S Ambalavana Chettiar & Co & ors v Express

Newspapers Ltd, Bombay4, has said that the seller can claim as damages the difference between

the contract price and the amount realized on the re-sale of the goods where he has the right of

re-sale under the section 54 of sale of goods act.

In the present matter, as no time is fixed under the contract of sale for acceptance of the goods,

the measure of damages is prima facie the difference between the contract price and the market

price on the date of the refusal by the buyer to accept the goods i.e 21 April, 2005.

3
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
4
P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs.Express Newspapers Ltd., Bombay, AIR1968SC741

2
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most

humbly and respectfully prayed before this Learned Court to

 Dismiss the suit with costs.

And further grant any other order that this Honorable Court may deem fit in the ends of justice,

equity and good conscience.

Date: October 25, 2015 Counsel for the respondent

Counsel code: 1261