1969 (9) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the year 1949-50 on March 23, 1949. The auction took place in pursuance of the conditions of "Auction of Excise Shops in Delhi for the year 1949-50" Ex. D-28. Clauses 31 and 33 of the conditions were to the following effect:          "31. The Chief Commissioner is under no obligation to grant any license until he is assured of financial status of the bidder. At the conclusion of the auction an enquiry will be made into the financial position of any bidder not known to the excise staff and any such bidder shall if necessary be called upon to furnish security for the observance of the terms of his licence as required by sub- section (2) of section 34 of the Punjab Excise Act 1 of 1914, as extended....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....obligation between the parties. The decree of the trial court was upheld by the lower appellate court. In second appeal False, J., took the view that cl. 3 3 was not in consonance with the statutory rules and the contract came into existence when the bidding was closed in favour of the respondent on March 23, 1949. The respondent was therefore held liable to make good the loss which the Government sustained in resorting to the resale of the excise shop. The respondent preferred an appeal under Letters Patent. The Division Bench allowed the appeal reversing the decision of the single Judge and restored that of the trial court. Clause 21 of rule 5.34 states:            "A person to whom ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 60 of the Excise Act as applied .to the Delhi Province." On behalf of the appellants it was contended by Dr. Seyid Muhammad that the respondent was under a legal obligation to pay one-sixth of the annual fee within seven days of the auction under cl. 21 of r. 5.34 and it was due to his default that a resale of the excise shep was ordered. Under cl. 22 of r. 5.34 the respondent was liable for the deficiency in price and all expenses of such resale* which was caused by his default. We are unable to accept this argument. The first portion of cl. 21 requires the "person to whom the shop has been sold" to deposit one-sixth of the total annual fee within seven days. But the sale is deemed to have been made in favour of the highest bidder onl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s solicitors had approved the title. Jessel, M.R. observed at p. 626 of the report as follows:              "The offer made to the Plaintiff of the estate at that price was a simple offer containing no reference whatever to title. The alleged acceptance was an acceptance of the offer, so far as price was concerned, 'subject to the title being approved by our solicitors'. There was no acceptance of that additional term, and the only question which we are called upon to decide is, whether that additional term so expressed amounts in law to an additional term or whether it amounts, as was very fairly admitted by the counsel for the Respondents, to nothing at that is, whether it mer....