Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Union Of India vs M/S Indian Proofing & General Inds. on 29 May, 1998 cites

Saraya Distillery vs Union Of India And Anr. on 12 March, 1984

12. It is undisputed that the contract was to be performed by 31st March 1985 and the order was placed on 28th May 1985. The law as to such type of damages is that damages are to be assessed with reference to date fixed for delivery and the court must estimate rate as best as it can and it matters not that the estimate to a certain extent is speculative. If it is proved that after rescission of the contract the claimant acting reasonably and as prudent man, he might have made a contract at better rates that could be considered ground for abatement of damages and if after the breach of the contract, fresh contract is entered which is at the risk of the party other than the party claiming damages for he cannot make use of such a purchase for the purpose of enhancing his damages. The mere fact that it is somewhat difficult to accept the damages with certainty and precision,does not relieve the defendant of his liability to pay the damages to the plaintiff to compensate for the loss. The plaintiff would be entitled to the benefit of every reasonable presumption as to the loss suffered. Supposing that the market rate at place of delivery is not available, the arbitrator could take into consideration the market price at the nearest place and on this very logic if the market rate on the exact date of breach is not available, the arbitrator can certainly take into consideration the market price at the nearest day. (See also M/s Saraya Distillery, Sardarbaggar Vs. Union of India & Anr., and Andard Mount (London) Ltd., England Vs. Curewel (India) Ltd., New Delhi, AIR 1985 Delhi 45).
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1