Surendranath Sud (Dead) By L.Rs. vs Standard Vacuum Oil Co. And Ors.
- SCC(1977) 2 SCC 408
- AIRAIR 1977 SC 1454
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a contract between parties forms the foundation of a claim, a court may look beyond defective pleadings and documentary presentation to discern the real issue in dispute and do justice between the parties on a fair understanding of the contract's terms and surrounding circumstances, even where strict interpretation of those terms would not support the claim as pleaded. A court has discretion to award reasonable compensation in settlement of contractual claims where the exact quantification cannot be precisely determined from the evidence, based on an intelligent assessment of what would fairly represent the plaintiff's probable compensation under the contract.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. These two appeals by special leave step from a suit instituted by the appellant (now represented by his legal representative, his widow) for rendition of accosts against the defendant respondent, the Standard Vacuum Oil Company Ltd. The respondent company has been taken over by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. We have heard counsel on both sides. It is unfortunate that the plaint has been drafted within a confused manner and the written statement, probably misleads by the plaint, and has also not brought out the real contention between the parties. Sorting out the documents and the other evidence in the case, we have discovered that the foundation for the action is Ex. P-9-(a) a contract between Mr. Sud the plaintiff and the Section V.O.C., the defendant. The courts not having proper leadings before them have not been able to approach the real issue arising in the case. The party mainly responsible for this misfortune is probably the plaintiff himself.
2. Even so, looking at the justice of the matter in the light of (Ex. P-9 a) we are satisfied that the dependent-respondent should pay the plaintiff-appellant an amount, which would represent the probable compensation in lieu of the claim made. We are overlooking the inartistic drafting, we are slurring over the true nature of the claim, we are not strictly interpreting the terms of the contract; but in an endeavor to do justice to the plaintiff (now represented by his legal representatives) we feel that it is appropriate to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- grounding ourselves on a fair understanding of the terms of Ex. P-9 (a) and the surrounding circumstances. The quantification part is rough and ready because, in the circumstances, nothing else than an intelligent guess can be made.
3. In the result, we direct the respondent No. 1 to pay the appellants a sum of Rs. 12.000/- in full and final settlement of all claims under the agreements Exs. P-8, P-9 and P-9(a). This sum shall be payable within three months from today. In the circumstances, we direct that the parties do bear their costs throughout.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free