{"id":48639,"date":"1961-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961"},"modified":"2017-08-28T10:19:25","modified_gmt":"2017-08-28T04:49:25","slug":"china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961","title":{"rendered":"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills … on 17 February, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills … on 17 February, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1295, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 845<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHINA COTTON EXPORTERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBEHARILAL RAMCHARAN COTTONMILLS LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/02\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1295\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 845\n\n\nACT:\nBreach of Contract-Contract for sale of goods-Supply subject\nto import licence-Shipping date guaranteed-Failure to supply\nInadequacy  of\tseller's contract with\toverseas  suppliers-\nLiability.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant had made a contract with its Italian suppliers\nfor 200,000 lbs. of cotton fibre for August, 1950,  shipment\nand  another for 300,000 lbs. for  Novermber\/December,\t950,\nshipment.   On July 22, 1950, the appellant entered  into  a\ncontract with the respondent for the sale Of 40,000 lbs.  of\nfibre,\tAugust shipment.  On August 9, 950, it entered\tinto\nanother contract with the respondent for sale of 50,000 lbs.\nof  fibre,  \"I\tOctober\/November 1950  shipment\t \".  In\t the\nremarks\t column of the second contract it was  mentioned:  \"\nThis contract is subject to import licence and therefore the\nshipment  date is not guranteed \". In October, 1950,  50,000\nlbs.  out of the first contract with the  Italian  suppliers\narrived;  Out Of this 40,000 was delivered to  the  respon-,\ndent  against  his  first contract and\t10,000\tagainst\t the\nsecond\tThe  balance  Of 40,000,  lbs.\tagainst\t the  second\ncontract was not\n846\nsupplied.   The\t respondent  filed a suit  for\tdamages\t for\nbreach of contract.  The appellant contended that it was not\nliable as. the date of shipment was not guaranteed and as it\nhad  adequate  contracts  with its suppliers  to  cover\t the\ncontract with the respondent but was unable to fulfil it  as\nthe supplier failed to make the deliveries.\nHeld,  that the appellant was liable for breach of  contract\nas the date of shipment was guaranteed and as the  appellant\nhad  no adequate contracts with its suppliers to  cover\t the\ncontract with the respondent.  In commercial contracts\ttime\nis ordinarily of the essence of the contract.  The words  in\nthe  remarks column meant that the date of shipment was\t not\nguaranteed  only to the extent that delay in  obtaining\t the\nimport\tlicence stood in the way of keeping to the  shipment\ndate.\tAs there was no delay in obtaining the\tlicence\t the\nshipment  date October\/November, 1950, was guaranteed.\t The\nother  terms  of the contract also showed that the  date  of\nshipment was guaranteed.  The appellant had to show that  on\nthe  date of the breach i.e. on December 15, 1950, it had  a\ncontract under which it could, provided the contract was not\nbroken,\t obtain\t the goods to honour its agreement  to\tsell\nOctober\/November shipment of goods.  The first contract with\nthe suppliers was cancelled at the end of September and\t the\nappellant was not entitled to receive any goods under it  on\nthe  relevant date.  Under the second contract it could\t not\nbe  said that the suppliers were bound to deliver the  goods\nby  instalments\t or to supply at least\t40,000\tlbs.  before\nDecember  15,  as the contract with the\t suppliers  was\t not\nproduced  before  the Court.  The appellant  had  failed  to\nestablish  that\t it had an adequate contract  to  cover\t the\ncontract  in suit.  It was not enough for the  appellant  to\nshow  that there was a chance of it fulfilling its  contract\nwith the respondent.\nBilasiram Thakurdas v. Gubbay (1915) I.L.R. 43 Cal. 305\t and\nPhoenix\t Mills\tLtd. v. Madhavdas Rupchand  (1916)  24\tBow.\nL.R. 142, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 331 of 1956.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nMarch 11, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 97 of
\n1954.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t Setalvad,  Attorney-General  for India\t and  G.  C.
\nMathur, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Purshottam  Trikumdas,\tS. N. Andley, J. B.  Dadachanji\t and
\nRameshwar Nath, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1961.\tFebruary;  17.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\n847<\/span>
\n DAS GUPTA J.-This appeal is from a judgment of the Court of
\nAppeal of the Bombay High Court confirming the decision of a
\nsingle judge of that Court in a suit for damages for  breach
\nof  a  contract\t of sale.  By a contract  in  writing  dated
\nAugust\t9,1950, entered into at Bombay, the  appellants\t who
\ncarry  on business at Bombay as import and export  merchants
\nagreed\tto  sell to the respondent, a  company\tcarrying  on
\nbusiness  also\tat Bombay as a Cotton Spinning\tand  Weaving
\nMill,  and the respondent agreed to purchase 50,000 lbs.  of
\nItalian\t Staple\t Fibre\tCotton\tof  the\t quality   mentioned
\ntherein,  at  Rs.  1,350\/-  per\t Candy\tEx  docks,  Shipment
\nOctober\/November  1950.\t  Of this quantity 10,000  lbs.\t was
\ndelivered  to  and  accepted by the  respondent\t company  on
\nOctober\t 31,  1950.  The balance amount of 40,000  lbs.\t not
\nhaving\t been  delivered  in  terms  of\t the  contract\t the
\nrespondent  company brought the present suit for damages  on
\nthe allegation that the appellant firm had wrongfully failed
\nand neglected to deliver this balance amount of the contract
\ngoods.\t The  appellant\t admitted failure  to  deliver\tthis
\namount;\t but -pleaded that this was not wrongful failure  to
\ndeliver.   The\tappellant averred in its  written  statement
\nthat  the non-supply of the goods arose by reason of  the  ”
\nintermediary parties (meaning thereby the suppliers) failing
\nto supply and deliver goods to the defendant and also of the
\ncircumstances beyond their control”; and claimed that it was
\nexempted  from any liability to the plaintiff company  under
\nprinted\t term  16 of the contract.  The\t defendant  ,further
\npleaded that the shipment time mentioned in the contract was
\nnot  guaranteed,  and the time of shipment was\tnot  of\t the
\nessence\t of  the contract.  The Trial Judge  held  that\t the
\nshipment  time was guaranteed, except in so far as;delay  in
\nshipment might be due to delay in obtaining import  licence-
\nwhich however was in the present case obtained in good time-
\n; that time of. shipment was of the essence of the contract;
\nand   finally  that  there  was\t no  case  here\t of  any   ”
\nintermediary  parties  ” failing to supply or  -deliver\t the
\ngoods  and as the defendant firm had not made  any  adequate
\ncontract which would have
\n848<\/span>
\nenabled\t it to obtain the supply of goods-if  such  contract
\nhad not been broken-from which it could have delivered those
\n40,000 lbs. ;the further defence that the non-supply was due
\nto  ”  circumstances  beyond their control  ”  also  failed.
\nAccordingly  the  Trial\t Judge\theld  that  there  had\tbeen
\nwrongful  breach of the contract by the appellant  firm\t and
\nthe   plaintiff\t company-the  respondent-was   entitled\t  to
\ndamages.   The actual assessment of damages was referred  to
\nthe Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
On  appeal by the defendant, the Appeal Court held  agreeing
\nwith the Trial Judge that as there was no delay in obtaining
\nthe  import  licence,  the  obligation\tto  deliver  to\t the
\nplaintiff  contract  goods  of\tOctober\/  November  shipment
\ncontinued.   The learned judges also pointed out that ”\t the
\nfailure\t to  give  delivery  primarily\tarose  because\t the
\ndefendants  never were ready and willing to carry out  their
\nobligation  to\tgive  delivery\tbecause\t they  had  made  no
\narrangement  to get goods from Italy which they\t could\thave
\ndelivered  at  the contract time.” Therefore, the  Court  of
\nAppeal held that it was not open to defendant to rely on any
\nof the clauses in the contract which condones delay on their
\npart or which excuses them from giving delivery.  The appeal
\nwas accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tagainst\t this order of dismissal  that\tthe  present
\nappeal has been preferred by the defendant firm after having
\nobtained special leave from this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Three  contentions were raised before us in support  of\t the
\nappeal.\t The first contention is that the shipment date\t was
\nnot  guaranteed;  the  second contention,  which  really  is
\ninvolved in the first,, is that the shipment time was not of
\nthe essence of the contract.  Lastly, it was urged that\t the
\ncontracts  which  the  defendant firm  had  made  with\tits:
\nItalian\t  suppliers,  were  adequate  for  their   obtaining
\nsupplies  in  good time to enable, them-if  these  contracts
\nwere  not broken to complete the requisite delivery  to\t the
\nplaintiff  company, in proper time.\n<\/p>\n
The  contract  wag  on a printed document,  with  the  teems
\nregarding quantity,: quality, price, shipment, payment,\t and
\nthe remarks column. filled in manuscript.\n<\/p>\n
849<\/span><\/p>\n
Against Shipment-we find ” October\/November, 1950.  ” In the
\nremarks\t column we find the following written: ” 1.  Invoice
\nweight to be accepted ; 2. This contract     is\t subject  to
\nimport licence and therefore the shipment    date   is\t not
\nguaranteed.”\n<\/p>\n
We find thus that whatever may have been said earlier in the
\nprinted portion of the contract the parties took care, after
\nspecifying  ”  October\/November,  1950\t”  as  the  date  of
\nshipment to make a definite condition in the remarks column,
\non  the\t important question whether the\t shipment  date\t was
\nbeing  guaranteed  or not and if so, to\t what  extent.\t The
\nwords are: “This contract is subject to import licence,\t and
\ntherefore the shipment date is not guaranteed.” Remembering,
\nas we must, that in commercial contracts, time is ordinarily
\nof  the\t essence  of  the contract and\tgiving\tthe  word  ”
\ntherefore  ” its natural, grammatical meaning, we must\thold
\nthat  what the parties intended was that to the extent\tthat
\ndelay in shipment stands in the way, of keeping to the ship-
\nment date October\/November, 1950, this shipment date was not
\nguaranteed;    but    with    this    exception\t    shipment
\nOctober\/November,   1950,  was\tguaranteed.   It  has\tbeen
\nstrenuously contended by the learned Attorney-General,\tthat
\nthe  parties  were mentioning only one of the  many  reasons
\nwhich  might cause delay in shipment and the  conjunction  ”
\ntherefore ” was used only to show the connection between one
\nof  the\t many reasons-by way of illustration and  a  general
\nagreement that the shipment date was not guaranteed.  We  do
\nnot  consider this explanation of the use of ”\ttherefore  ”
\nacceptable.   If the parties intended that quite &part\tfrom
\ndelay  in  obtaining import licence, shipment date  was\t not
\nguaranteed, the natural way of expressing such\tintention-an
\nintention  contrary  to the usual  intention  in  commercial
\ncontracts  of treating time as the essence of the  contract-
\nwould  be  to  say: ,,This contract  is\t subject  to  import
\nlicence\t and the shipment date is not guaranteed.   ”  There
\nmight be other ways of expressing the same intention, but it
\nis  only  reasonable to expect that  anybody  following\t the
\nordinary rules of grammar would not use ” therefore”\n<\/p>\n
850<\/span><\/p>\n
in  such  a context except to mean that only to\t the  extent
\nthat  delay  was due to delay in  obtaining  import  licence
\nshipment time was not guaranteed.\n<\/p>\n
As we have already mentioned, the remarks column was  filled
\nin manuscript and consequently even if the terms in print by
\nthemselves  might  have\t justified  a  conclusion  that\t the
\nparties intended that the shipment date was not\t guaranteed,
\nthe  intention expressed in the manuscript  should  prevail.
\nWe  are not satisfied however that the terms in print  would
\njustify\t any such conclusion.  The learned  Attorney-General
\ntried\tto  persuade  us  that\tthe  printed  term   2\t was
\ninconsistent  with  shipment date being guaranteed  at\tall.
\nThe  term 2 is in two parts.  The first part  provides\tthat
\nsubject to provisions of cls. 7 and 9, ,if the goods or\t any
\nportion\t of them are not shipped for any reason, or  reasons
\nother  than  those specified in el. 9, within  the  shipment
\ntime with the fifteen days latitude provided for in the said
\nclause\t7,  the sellers shall not be responsible  but  shall
\ngive  notice  to  the buyers of such  non-shipment  and\t the
\nbuyers\tshall have option to cancel the portion\t so  overdue
\nwithout claiming any allowance or compensation or grant such
\nextension  of time for shipment from time to time as may  be
\nrequired  by the sellers ” at allowance as mentioned in\t the
\nsecond paragraph.  The second paragraph of term 2 lays\tdown
\ngraduated rates of allowance for different periods of delay:
\nat 2 1\/2 % for delay up to a month; at 2-1\/2% for delay from
\none  month to two months; 3-1\/2% for delay of two  to  three
\nmonths\tand  7-1\/2%  for delay of more\tthan  three  months.
\nDifferent rates were mentioned as regards the woollen goods.
\nIt may be mentioned here that cl. 7 of the contract provides
\nfor  a\tlatitude of 16 days after the shipment while  cl.  9
\ncontains  the  special exemption clause\t where\tshipment  is
\ndelayed\t by  force  majeure,  war  or  warlike\t operations,
\nstrikes,  lock-outs,  etc.   The  learned   Attorney-General
\ncontends  that\tprovisions of term 2 show that\tthe  parties
\nagreed\tthat  the time will not be, of the  essence  of\t the
\ncontract  and  shipment\t time will  not.be  guaranteed.\t  It
\nappears to us that these provisions show just the  contrary.
\nThe provisions in the first
\n851<\/span>
\nparagraph  give\t the seller a right to give  notice  to\t the
\nbuyer  of non-shipment and give the buyer an option on\tsuch
\nnotice either to cancel the portion not shipped or to  grant
\nextension  of  time at allowances mentioned  in\t the  second
\nparagraph.   Unless time was of the essence of the  contract
\nand  shipment time was Ramces guaranteed there would  be  no
\nneed for making such provisions for an option for  extension
\nof time, or for these allowances.\n<\/p>\n
The provisions of cls. 7 and 9 do not affect the question.
\nWe are therefore of opinion that the courts below were right
\nin thinking that the shipment time was guaranteed, and\ttime
\nwas of the essence of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
This  brings us to the question whether the  defendant\tfirm
\nhad any adequate contract with their Italian suppliers which
\nif  not broken would have put them in a position  to  supply
\nthe  good,-, in question.  It is not disputed that if  there
\nwas  any  such adequate contract the defendant will  not  be
\nliable\tfor damages.  It is equally clear that if there\t was
\nno such contract, the defendant cannot escape liability.
\nThe  learned Attorney-General sought to argue that  even  if
\nthe  contract  was  such  that there was  a  chance  of\t the
\ndefendant obtaining the supplies in good time that would  be
\nsufficient to exonerate it.  We think that this\t proposition
\nis not sound.  Before the seller could be heard to say\tthat
\nthe  non-supply\t was  due  to default on  the  part  of\t his
\nsuppliers or some other cause beyond his control the  seller
\nis  bound  to show that be himself did all in his  power  to
\nensure timely supply.  He could do so by showing that he had
\nmade  a contract under which he was entitled to\t obtain\t the
\nsupplies  in good time.\t If under his contract with his\t own
\nsuppliers  he  was not so entitled but there  was  merely  a
\nchance of his getting the supplies in time to enable him  to
\nhonour\this contract the non-supply would clearly be due  to
\nhis own default in not making a contract which would have so
\nentitled  him  and  not\t to a default on  the  part  of\t the
\nsupplier or to a circumstance beyond his control.\n<\/p>\n
852<\/span><\/p>\n
Turning\t now  to  the facts of the case\t we  find  that\t the
\ndefendant had made two contracts with its Italian suppliers-
\none  contract for 200,000 lbs. of cotton for  August,  1950,
\nshipment  which it is said was later extended to  September,
\n1950; another contract\tOf August 4, 1950, for 300,000\tlbs.
\nfor  November\/\tDecember, 1950.\t The defendant\thad  also  a
\ncontract  with the plaintiff company of July 22,  1950,\t for
\nsale  of  40,000 lbs.  August  shipment-later  converted  to
\nNovember\/December  shipment.  In October, 1950, 50,000\tlbs.
\nout  of\t the  first  contract  with  the  Italian  suppliers
\narrived;  out of this 40,000 was delivered to the  plaintiff
\ncompany\t in satisfaction of the earlier contract and  10,000
\nwas  delivered in satisfaction of this\tsecond\tcontract-the
\ncontract  now in suit.\tUnder the contract for 300,000\tlbs.
\nthe buyer (the defendant) received 70,000 lbs. of goods.  Of
\nthis  nothing  was  given to the plaintiff  company  and  so
\n40,000\tlbs. remained undelivered.  The question is had\t the
\ndefend.\t ant a contract under which it could,  provided\t the
\ncontract was not broken, obtain the goods in time to  honour
\nits agreement to sell October\/November shipment of goods.
\nThe learned Attorney-General complains that the courts below
\ntotally\t  left\tout  of\t consideration\tthe  sellers’\t(the
\nappellants’)  earlier  contract with Italian  suppliers\t and
\nsays  that that, at least, was an adequate contract.   There
\nwould  be force in this argument if at the time\t the  breach
\ntook  place,  that is, the last date  under  which  shipment
\ncould  be made under the con. tract in suit,  the  defendant
\nwould have been entitled to obtain goods, under that earlier
\ncontract.   But that is not the position.  In any  case\t the
\nearlier\t contract was cancelled at the end of September;  so
\nthat at the. time of the breach the seller was not  entitled
\nto receive any goods under that contract.\n<\/p>\n
We  come  next to the  seller’s\t November\/December  shipment
\ncontract with its Italian suppliers.  The courts below\thave
\npointed\t out  that  under  such\t a  contract,  the   Italian
\nsuppliers were entitled to delay shipment till the last\t day
\nof December.  If that be the position the seller would\tnot,
\non the last day by which
\n853<\/span>
\nthe  goods under its contract ought to have  been  supplied,
\nviz.,  December 15, 1950, after adding 15 days under  clause
\n7, have any contract under which it would have been entitled
\nto receive goods in sufficient time.  The learned  Attorney-
\nGeneral has however contended that under the contract  which
\nthe defend-‘ ant had with its Italian suppliers the  Italian
\nsuppliers  would  be  bound to spread the  supply  over\t the
\nperiod, November\/December and thus bound to ship 40,000 lbs.
\nat least well before the December, 15.\n<\/p>\n
The great difficulty in the way of this argument is that the
\ndefendants’ contract with its Italian suppliers has not been
\nproduced and we do not know the terms of that contract.\t  In
\nBilasiram  Thakurdas  v. Gubbay (1) from which\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t sought\t assistance  the terms of  shipment  in\t the
\ncontract was ” shipments to be made by steamers during July-
\nDecember 1914 -shipment in any month by one or more steamers
\nThis   was  clearly  an\t instalment  contract  and  on\t the
\nconstruction of that contract the court held that the  buyer
\nhad  the  right\t to demand delivery  of\t goods\tby  separate
\nshipments spread over the months from July to December.\t  In
\nPhoenix\t Mills Ltd. v. Madhavdas Rupchand (2)  the  question
\narose whether the plaintiff’s sellers had committed a breach
\nby  not giving delivery where the terms of delivery were:  ”
\n200 bales No. 20s and 20-1\/2s Ring October-November 1913 and
\n50  bales  No. 6-1\/2s Mule yarn as manufactured\t “.  It\t was
\nfurther mentioned in the contract that the buyers agreed  to
\ntake  delivery\tof the bales from time to time as  they\t are
\nready.\t It  was  in view of these terms  that\tMr.  Justice
\nMacleod held that ” the Court can only consider the  parties
\nto  have  in-tended, when they signed  that  contract,\tthat
\ndelivery  should  be  asked for and  given  during  October-
\nNovember  of two hundred bales, delivery being asked for  of
\nreasonable  quantities\tat  a  time  during  the  period  of
\ndelivery.”\n<\/p>\n
These  decisions  are in line with the English law  in\tthis
\nmatter as stated by Benjamin on Sale, 8th Edition, at P. 724
\nthus :-\n<\/p>\n
”  Where  the amount of instalments is\tnot  specified,\t the
\nprima facie rule would seem to be that the
\n(1) (1915) I.L.R. 43 Cal. 305.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1916) 24 Bom.  L.R. 142.\n<\/p>\n
854<\/span><\/p>\n
deliveries should be rateably distributed over the  contract
\nperiod.”\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  author  goes on to say that ”  if\t it  can  be
\ngathered from the terms of the contract or the circumstances
\nthat rateable deliveries were not intended, it then  becomes
\na question for the jury whether the tender of or demand for,
\ndelivery is a reasonable one.”\n<\/p>\n
Quite  clearly however the question whether delivery  should
\nbe spread over the period arises only in case of  instalment
\ncontracts.  There is nothing however before us to show\tthat
\nthe  defendant’s contract with its Italian suppliers was  an
\ninstalment  contract.\tEven though the\t proprietor  of\t the
\ndefendant’s  Italian supplier was examined he  said  nothing
\nwhich would even tend to show that the contract between\t him
\nand  the  defendant  was an  instalment\t contract.   In\t the
\nabsence\t  of  the  contract  or\t any   other   circumstances
\njustifying  a conclusion that it was instalment contract  it
\nis  not\t possible to accept the contention  of\tthe  learned
\nAttorney-General  that\tthe  defendant’s  Italian  suppliers
\nwould  be  bound  to  spread  the  supply  over\t the  period
\nOctober\/November, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  thus\t no  escape from  the  conclusion  that\t the
\ndefendant  has failed to establish its case that it  had  an
\nadequate  contract with its Italian suppliers, which if\t not
\nbroken, would put it in possession of 40,000 lbs. of  cotton
\nfibre  before December 15, 1950.  The defendant firm  cannot
\ntherefore escape the liability for the damages for breach of
\nthe contract, by the failure to supply those goods.
\nThe appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
855<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills … on 17 February, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1295, 1961 SCR (3) 845 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: CHINA COTTON EXPORTERS Vs. RESPONDENT: BEHARILAL RAMCHARAN COTTONMILLS LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/1961 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChina Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills ... on 17 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills ... on 17 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-28T04:49:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills … on 17 February, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T04:49:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2848,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961\",\"name\":\"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills ... on 17 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T04:49:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills … on 17 February, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills ... on 17 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills ... on 17 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-28T04:49:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills … on 17 February, 1961","datePublished":"1961-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T04:49:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961"},"wordCount":2848,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961","name":"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills ... on 17 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T04:49:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/china-cotton-exporters-vs-beharilal-ramcharan-cottonmills-on-17-february-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills … on 17 February, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}