Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CASE ANALYSIS ON
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. Issues raised
3. Arguments
4. Judgment
5. Case analysis
Page | 2
The Plaintiff – M/s. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Company commenced an
action in the city civil court at Ahmedabad for decree of Rs 3150/-.
The case was filed against the Kedia Ginning Factory and Oil Mills of
Khamgoan, hereinafter referred to as the Defendant.
The plea was that the Defendants had failed to supply cotton seed cake
which they had agreed to supply under an oral contract dated July 22, 1959
negotiated between the parties by conversation over telephone.
Defendant had offered to seed cotton seed cake which was accepted by the
Plaintiff at Ahmedabad.
The Plaintiff submitted that the cause of action for the suit arose at
Ahmedabad, as the offer was accepted at Ahmedabad and the payment was
to be received through a bank of Ahmedabad.
2. ISSUE RAISED –
Page | 3
Whether the suit should be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of City
Civil Court Ahmedabad or not?
Page | 4
3. ARGUMENTS –
On behalf of Plaintiff
By this rule the Plaintiff contended that this applies to those contracts is
ordinary rule which regards a contract as complete only when an acceptance
is intimated to proposer. In case of a telephonic conversation each party is
able to hear the voice of other. There is an instantaneous communication of
speech intimating offer and acceptance, rejection or counter offer.
Intervention of an electric impulse which results in instantaneous
communication of message from one distance does not alter the nature of
conversation so as to make it analogous to that of a offer and acceptance
through a post or by telegraph.
On behalf of Defendant
Page | 5
Act, 1872, and applies uniformly.
Page | 6
4. JUDGMENT –
Majority View :
In the light of the facts of the case, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. C. Shah &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. N. Wanchoo delivered the Majority View and held
that the Trial Court was justified in taking the view that a part of the cause of
action arose within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court Ahmedabad,
where acceptance was communicated by telephone to Plaintiff.
Dissenting View :
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Hidayatullah delivered the Dissenting View with
the further remarks. At the time of telephonic conversation the proposers
who are Plaintiff in the suit were at Ahmedabad and the Acceptor, who is the
Defendant was at Khamgaon in Vidharbha.
It was observed that if the acceptance was complete and contract was made
when Defendant spoke in the telephone at Khamgaon, the Ahmedabad court
would lack jurisdiction to try the suit. It would have the jurisdiction
otherwise if the acceptance was complete only on the reception of speech at
Ahmedabad and that was the place where the contract was made.
Page | 7
opinion that the rule which has been accepted for letters and telegrams
should not be extended to communication by telephone.
5. CASE ANALYSIS –
Page | 8
The present case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia Vs. M/s. Girdharilal
Parshottamdas & Co. and Ors. reported in AIR 1966 SC 543, deals with the
act of failure of contract as a result thereof. In the lights of facts stated by
both the interested parties, one issue has been specifically highlighted, i.e.
whether the suit should have been filed within the territorial jurisdiction of
City Civil Court Ahmedabad or not?
This case deals with Section 3 & 4 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The
position of law is as follows:
Page | 9