Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SMT. ASLHING @ LHINGJANONG
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
L.S. JOHN & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1983
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:
1984 AIR 988 1984 SCR (1) 863
1984 SCC (1) 205 1983 SCALE (2)813
ACT:
Contract-When a party writes to the opposite party that
it is closing the contract, does the contract subsist ?
HEADNOTE:
The respondent who was a party to a subsisting contract
with the Government for widening or a road wrote a letter to
the concerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing
the said contract. 1 he appellant contended that the
contents of the letter did not have the effect of putting an
end to the contract.
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: After the letter, the contract came to an end by
breach and was no longer subsisting. Acceptance of the
letter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end
to the contract although the breach may give rise to an
action for damages. [864 B-C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11 89 of
1982.
From the Judgment and order dated the 18th December,
1981 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of
1980.
S Rangarajan, S.K. Nandy and S. Parikh for the
Appellant.
A.K Nag for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. In this election appeal the only point
for determination is whether at the time when respondent No.
I filed his nomination paper he held a subsisting contract
with the Government for widening the PLP road.. While it is
true that there was such a contract in existence prior to
30:11.1979, respondent No. 1 wrote a
864
letter on 30.11.1979 to the concerned Executive Engineer
stating that he was closing the said contract. The last date
for filing nomination was 10.12.1979. It is argued that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
contents of the said letter does not have the effect of
putting an end to the contract. After going through the
contents of the letter it is absolutely clear that the
contractor unilaterally put an end to the contract and
informed the Department concerned accordingly and also he
had resigned from the contractor’s list of PWD Manipur. Thus
after this letter the contract came to an end by breach and
the contract was no longer subsisting. Mr. Rangarajan has
submitted some very nice and delicate questions for
consideration. One of them-being that until and unless the
letter is accepted by the Authority the contract would
continue and thus the respondent would suffer from the
disqualification. In our opinion having regard to the
contents of the letter it is not possible to accept the
argument of Mr. Rangarajan that the contract was subsisting.
The acceptance of the letter by the authorities was
unnecessary for putting an end to the contract although the
breach may give rise to a cause on action for damages. No
other point is raised before us. We do not find any merit in
this appeal and it is dismissed without any order as to
costs.
H.L. C. Appeal dismissed.
865