Appeal Dismissed: Supplemental Agreement Lacked Consideration; Court Awards Damages for Non-Delivery of Dal.

The Appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Court, which found that the supplemental agreement lacked consideration and was entered into under duress and coercion. The Court decreed damages for non-delivery of 89.607 tonnes of dal under the original agreement but rejected other claims tied to the supplemental agreement. The Court determined that the supplemental agreement required separate consideration and that the Appellant's argument regarding the forbearance of enforcing bank guarantees was unsupported, as the original agreement had been fulfilled. Consequently, the claims based on the supplemental agreement were not enforceable, affirming the Respondents' position.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to breach of contract, consideration for supplemental agreement, and enforcement of bank guarantees.

Breach of Contract:
The Appellant filed a suit for damages due to non-delivery of dal as per the original agreement. The suit was decreed for the non-delivery of 89.607 tonnes of dal, but other claims were rejected as they arose under the supplemental agreement entered into under duress and coercion, without consideration.

Consideration for Supplemental Agreement:
The Appellant argued that the supplemental agreement did not require further consideration as it was part of the original agreement. However, the Court held that the original agreements were fulfilled once the dal was accepted, and the supplemental agreement for upgrading dal required separate consideration.

Enforcement of Bank Guarantees:
The Appellant claimed that the consideration for the supplemental agreement was the forbearance on their part not to enforce bank guarantees given by the Respondents. The Court found that there was no mention of this in the supplemental agreement, and since the Respondents had delivered and the Appellant had accepted the dal, there was no breach of the original agreement to warrant enforcement of bank guarantees.

The Appeal was dismissed as the Court agreed with the reasoning that the supplemental agreement lacked consideration. The judgment highlighted that the original agreements and the supplemental agreement served different purposes, and the claims in the suit were based solely on the supplemental agreement.

---