Novation and alternative remedy principles: contract extension was treated as modification, and writ jurisdiction remained available.

Mere extension of time for contractual performance does not amount to novation where the arrangement remains a modification of the existing contract; on the facts, the proposed variation in quantity and quality of cashew kernels did not create a new contract, and the plea of novation was rejected. The Court also stated that the existence of appeal or revision remedies under the Customs Act does not bar writ jurisdiction where those remedies are not adequate and efficacious; the alternative-remedy objection was therefore rejected. The ratio stated that writ relief remains available in such circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrangement amounted to novation of the contract so as to justify the proposed export variation; (ii) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy by appeal or revision under the Customs Act.

Issue (i): Whether the arrangement amounted to novation of the contract so as to justify the proposed export variation.

Analysis: The extension of time for performance did not create a new contract. The proposed variation in the quantity and quality of cashew kernels was treated as a modification of the existing arrangement, not as novation attracting a new contractual character. The record also did not establish that the foreign exchange earning would be less than what would have been obtained under the original contract.

Conclusion: The plea of novation was rejected and the assessee's case on this point was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy by appeal or revision under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The appellate and revisional remedies were held not to be adequate and efficacious in the circumstances. The Court followed the earlier view that the existence of such remedies did not oust writ jurisdiction where they did not provide an effective remedy.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the writ petition was maintained.

Final Conclusion: No ground for interference was made out, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere extension of time for contractual performance does not amount to novation, and the existence of statutory appeal or revision does not bar writ relief where those remedies are not adequate and efficacious.

---