2003 (9) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... High Court dated 21st March, 1996. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 3. The Appellant had agreed to supply arhar dal to the Army Purchase Organisation, Reserve Grain Depot, Lucknow. They therefore invited tenders for milling arhar whole into dal. The Respondents submitted two tenders; one for conversion of 1,500 metric tonnes of arhar whole into dal and the second for converting 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 9.6.78 after duly upgrading the same. Thus, out of 184.400 tonnes of rejected dal, the Respondents were still having 89.607 tonnes in their custody. Thereafter the Respondents did not replace any further dal. The Appellant tried to get the dal upgraded from some other contractor but nobody agreed to upgrade the dal. Ultimately the Appellants sold off the dal in an auction sale for a sum of Rs. 9,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n for the supplemental agreement has been upheld. 7. The Respondents have remained absent even though served. 8. On behalf of the Appellant it has been submitted that he supplemental agreement was part and parcel of the original agreement and that therefore no further consideration was required. We are unable to accept this submission. The original agreements were for converting arhar whole ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 10. It was next submitted that under the original agreement the Respondents had given bank guarantee. It was submitted that the consideration for the supplemental agreement was the forbearance on the part of the Appellants agreement not to enforce those bank guarantees. In this behalf reliance was placed on the definition of the term "consideration" in Section 2(d) of the Contract Act, which r....