Aslhing Alias Lhingjanong Vs. L.S. John and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Contract |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Nov-22-1983 |
| Civil Appeal No. 1189 of 1982 |
| E.S. Venkataramiah,; O. Chinnappa Reddy and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ. |
| AIR1984SC988; 1983(2)SCALE813; (1984)1SCC205; [1984]1SCR863; 1984(16)LC154(SC) |
| Aslhing Alias Lhingjanong |
| L.S. John and ors. |
| S. Rangarajan and; S.K. Nandy, Advs |
| A.K. Nag, Adv. |
| From the Judgment and Order dated December 18, 1981 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1980 |
.....about which there is no evidence adduced in the sense in which the expression is used in the indian evidence act for enabling the court to hold any fact in issue or a relevant fact to be proved. the same principle applies as to the circumstances in which an accused can be examined by the magistrate under s. 207-a(6). where there is no evidence recorded under sub-s.(4) of s. 207-a, the magistrate has no jurisdiction to examine an accused under s. 207-a(6). in the present case the magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the accused to appear before him for examination. bachchan lai v. state, a.i.r. 1957 all. 184 and bahawala v. crow n, i.l.r. 6 lah. 183, relied on. (iii)the accused should be examined under s. 207a(6) with reference to what appears against him in evidence legally admissible before the court, while he is not to be required to commit himself by his answers in respect of matters which would be proved against him only at the trial and as regards which he would be examined later under s. 342(1) of the code. interpreted otherwise the section would give a good chance for fishing expedition and of modulating the prosecution case to destroy the accused's explanation at 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.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. In this election appeal the only point for determination is whether at the time when respondent No. 1 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 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 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 unilaterallyput 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.