TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 2,000 metric tones. These tenders were submitted on 10t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.400 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 ₹ 9,60,111. 5. The Appellant then filed a suit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 into dal, whereas supplemental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 reads as follows: When, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... most importantly in the suit it is not claimed that the consideration for the supplemental agreement was not the enforcement of the bank guarantees. 12. For all these reasons, we are in agreement with the reasoning given in the impugned judgment that the supplemental agreement was without consideration. 13. We therefore see no reason to interfere. Accordingly the Appeal stands dismissed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
