Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The position in law, therefore, is that the requirements as to sanction must be held to be satisfied if the transaction in all its essential particulars bad been sanctioned, even though there are details to be worked out in furtherance of the sanction and there is no further sanction given to the deed as finally settled. On these principles, there is much to be said in favour of the view contended for by the appellant that the communication dated 3-7-1916 is sufficient sanction for purposes of section 18. But such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the letter of the Secretary of the Board dated 13-7-1917 aforesaid. It was certainly open to the authorities to indicate the lines on which the document would have to be drafted and reserve the grant of sanction until they shall have had a full picture of the transaction, as might appear on the document. The Board might have, if that was their intention, sanctioned the transaction unconditionally by its letter dated 3-7- 1916, but it chose to make it conditional on the document being again approved by them. Under the circumstances, the letter dated 3-7-1916 cannot be construed as a final sanction of the transaction, notwithstanding that it was so recited in the deed dated 23-11-1917.

To continue the narration, in accordance with the note of the Secretary dated 13-7-1917, the draft deed was again taken up by Messrs Bird and Co., alterations were made therein, and the revised draft was submitted to the authorities for examination. They in their turn scrutinised the document, and sent it for the opinion of the Legal Department, and obtained its suggestions. And on 9-10-1917 the revised draft with the suggestions made in the Legal Department were returned by the Board to the authorities concerned "for information and such action as may be considered necessary". It should be noted that the Board did not again require the document to be sent to them for scrutiny, as they did by their letter dated 3-7-1916. In due course, the suggestions of the Legal Department which were four in number, were examined; three of them were formal in character, and were carried out. As regards the fourth, which related to the question of payment of the minimum royalty of Rs. 8,000 during the first year, it was found that under the agreement to which the parties had come, it was not payable during the first-year. The deed having been amended suitably to the suggestions made by the Law Department, it was executed as amended on 23-11- 1917.

The contention of the appellant is that the order of the Board dated 9-10-1917 is a sanction to the proposal in all its essential particulars, and that this is sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 18. The respondent contends that even on the letter dated 9-10-1917 there were four matters reserved to be considered before the deed could be engrossed, that it was only after these matters were settled that there would be a completed agreement, and that as no sanction bad been given to it after it had finally shaped itself, the requirements of section 18 bad not been satisfied. We are unable to uphold this contention. It is not disputed that three of the four matters were merely formal ones, and that with reference to the fourth, the suggestion of the Legal Department proceeded on a misapprehension of what had really been agreed to by the parties. Thus, all the essential terms of the agreement must be held to have been sanctioned by the Board by its letter dated 9-10-1917, and it is of no consequence, as laid down in Gulabsingh v. Seth Gokuldas(1) and Ramkanai Singh Deb Darpashaha v. Mathewson(2) that the document as finally drafted had not been submitted again for its appro- (1) [1913] L.R. 40 I.A. 117.