Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

.lm15 "Payment to be made in cash in exchange for Delivery Orders on Sellers, or for Railway Receipts or for Dock's Receipts or for Mate's Receipts (which Dock's or Mates Receipts are to be handed by a Dock or Ship's officer to the Seller's representatives)." In respect of the June, quota of B twill and the May and June installments of hessian, the plaintiff tendered to the defendant 'pucca delivery orders' on mills like Fort Gloster, Fort William or Auckland generally described as 'European Mills'. These pucca delivery orders which were issued by European Mills passed through several hands before they came into appellants possession. They contain a stipulation that the Mills were not bound to recognise any transferee,except the original buyer and require the transferees to give an undertaking to the Mills that they would take delivery of the goods in terms of the contract between the Mills and the original buyer. The appellant, as already stated, was not the original buyer of these pucca delivery orders. The respondent having refused to accept the pucca delivery orders tendered by the appellant or pay for the same, the appellant instituted the suit out of which the appeal arises.

The nature of a delivery order of the Indian lute Miffs Association has been dealt with by decisions of courts and may be referred to. In Anglo-India lute Mills Co. v. Omademull(1) the- court was dealing with a delivery order and a common form of contract used by the Indian Jute Manufacturers Association. Clause 3 of the contract is similar to the clause in the present contract and runs as follows :-

" Payments to be made in cash in exchange of delivery order on sellers or for Railway Receipts. or for Dock Receipts or for Mates Receipts (which Mates Receipts are to be ban- ded by Ships' Officer to the Sellers' representative)"

(1) I.L.R. 38 Cal. 127.

The Court found that it was established in evidence that delivery orders of the nature of the one in suit, passed from hand to hand by endorsement and were sold and dealt with in the market; that according to the invariable course of dealing in the Calcutta jute trade delivery orders were only issued on cash payment, and were dealt with in the market as absolutely representing the goods to which they related and free from any lien of the seller. In Duni Chand Rataria v. Bhuwalka Brothers Ltd.,(1) while considering the provisions of the West Bengal Jute Goods Future Ordinance, 1949, this Court referred to the terms and conditions of the standard form of the Indian Jute Mills Association contracts. Clause (3) of the contract is similar to clause 3 of the present contract and provided for payment to be made in cash in exchange for delivery orders. The Court found that in respect of the goods deliverable under the contracts the mills would, in the case of goods sent by them alongside the vessel in accordance with the shippers' instructions in that behalf, obtain tile mate's receipts in respect of the same and such mate's receipts would be delivered by the mills to their immediate buy buyers who in their turn would pass them on to their respective buyers in the chain of contracts resting with the ultimate shipper. If the mills held the goods in their godown they would issue delivery orders on the due date, which delivery orders would be dealt with in the same manner as the mate's receipts aforesaid. Both these sets of documents would represent the goods and would be passed on from seller to buyer against payment of cash. It proceeded to observe that as a matter of fact on the evidence the trial Judge held that in the Calcutta jute trade mills' delivery orders are ordinarily issued by the mills against cash payment and pass from hand to hand by endorsement and are used in the ordinary course of business authorising the endorser to receive the goods which they represent and that they are dealt with in the, market as representing presentingthe goods and being passed on from seller to buyer against payment ofcash and the delivery orders issued by the mills against cash payment are passed on from hand to hand by endorsement being received by the successive buyers against cash payment and are used in the ordinary course of business authorising the endorse, to receive the goods which they represent. The Court found that the manufacturer of jute goods does not come normally in direct contract with the shipper and it is only through a chain of contracting parties that the shipper obtains the goods from the manufacturer and if only actual delivery of possession as contrasted with symbolical or constructive delivery were contemplated it would be impossible to carry on the busi- ness. In conclusion this Court held that the delivery orders represented the goods and the sellers handed over these documents to the buyers against cash payment, and the buyers obtained these documents in token of delivery of possession of the goods. They in turn passed these documents from hand to hand until they rested with the ultimate buyer who took physical or manual delivery of possession of those goods. In the view that the delivery orders represented the goods this Court did not go into the question whether the delivery orders would (1)[1955] 1 S.C.R. 1071.