Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. It has further to be made clear that according to the terms of the partnership entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 on 30th of August, 1948, the entire undertaking was of the plaintiffs without any contribution whatsoever from defendant No. 2 and. his interest was confined to profit of 4 annas 3 pies in the rupee. The terms of this partnerrship had been communicated to the C. P. W. D. authorities and they are presumed to be aware of its terms and no objection whatever was raised on the ground that the contract was being assigned or that the work was being sublet. Clause 21 of the conditions of contract provides that the contract shall riot be assigned or sublet without the written approval of the Divisional Officer. It was open to the Divisional Officer to rescind the contract after giving notice in writing but the contract had not been rescinded on that ground. The investment in the undertaking is entirely of the plaintiffs which amounts to Es. 3,73,000/- as found by the trial Court while deciding the first issue. This finding has not been questioned before us. The result has been that though no breach of the contract had taken place and though no undertakings given by defendant No. 2 had been violated, not only the contract was illegally rescinded but the deposits have been forfeited, the entire plant, tools, materials and stores have been seized, the factory has been made over to other contractors not only to execute the contract in question but also the other contracts.

tiffs  and  we did    not exercise -   our power under
Clause 21 to rescind the   contract on the ground
of assignment or subletting, though we seized the
goods machinery plant etc. which was the exclusive property of the plaintiffs despite  there having  been  no  infraction of  the    Conditions  of  the
contract, though  we  diverted  the  security deposit.
to meet the income-tax    liability of    Kirpa Ram 
which had not arisen-under this contract though
the seizure   was  of   plaintiffs'   property who were
under no obligation to us nevertheless we refused
reparation to the plaintiffs as they were strangers
to the contract we had infringed.    There can be
no two opinions on a gross unfairness of such an
extent. 
 

 The question to be considered is whether the
sanction of the law can be invoked for perpefrat
ing the illegalities  when neither defendant No. 2
as a contracting party nor the plaintiffs, whose
monies, goods and factory were taken possession;
had acted in contravention of any term of the
contract. Another contention which was advanced
on behalf of the Government was that though the
property taken possession of was of the plaintiffs
and the seizure was wrongful, remedy was avail
able to Kirpa. Ham alone and it was not open to
the plaintiffs to contend that the terms of the
contract had been violated. It was also urged that
the plaintiffs were consenting party to the con-