BOOTHALINGA AGENCIES versus V. T. C. PORIASWAMI NADAR

BOOTHALINGA AGENCIES

V. T. C. PORIASWAMI NADAR

April 22, 1968

[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER. JJ.]

Indian Cont1·act Act (9 of 1872) s. 56--Contract entered in con-travention of licence terms-Doctrine of frusitration .. "self induced frustra-tion"-!! applies t<>-lmports and Exports (Control) Act (18 of 1947) s. 5-Contract entered in contravention of licence terms before amend-1nent in 1960-Whether statutory order breached-Sale if contravening cl. 5(4) of 1955 order.

The appellant entered into contract to sen certain goods to the respondent which he was importing under ·actual users' licence. Under the terms of the licence the sale of the, goods was prohibited and was to be utilised for consumption by •he importer. The goods arrived. and were cleared by the appellant. The respondent filecl suit, which was contested by the appellant on the· ground that the contract was illegal, and, therefore, void. The trial court decreed the suit holding thait the contravention of the terms of licence entailed only an administrative penalty, the sale could not be held to be prohibited by law and the contract was legal contract The High Court upheld the decree. In appeal, this Court :

HELD : The appeal must be allowed.

(i) The licence was granted by virtue of statutory notification issued under the Defence of India Rules. The n.otificaition authorises the licensing officer to impose one or more conditions prescribed by that order and the 1icensing officer has therefore power to impose conditions in the licence issued by him, but if the licensee contravenes the condi1tions im-posed by the licence it is merely contravention of the conditions of licence and not contravention of the provisions of s. 5 of the JmpoI11s and Exports (Control) Act, Section 5 of Act was amended by the Amend· ing Act 4 of 1960 much after the present controversy, so as ito include contravention of condition of liccn.ce. granted under any order as an offence under s. 5 of the Act. Therefore on the material date breach of the condi1tion of licence was not tantamount to breach of the statutory orde' within the meaning of s. 5 of the Act 18 of 1947. [73H; 74A-Dl

East India Con1ni.::rcial Co. Ltd., Calcutta, v. The Collector of Cus-tonJ.<, Calcutra, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338. followed.

(ii) The goods which arrived at the Indian Port on 13th December 1955 were governed by the provisions of lm9orts (Control) Order, 1955 which came into force on 7th De.ccmber 1955. Clause 5(4) of the 1955 order expressly provided that the licensee shall comply wiith all the condi-tions imposed or deemed to be imposed under that clause~ Therefore the <;ale of the imported goods would be direct contravention of cl. 5 ( 4) and under s. 5 of the Act an.y coT11travention of the Act or any order made or deemed to have. been made under the Act was punish-able with imprisonment or :fine or both. In consequence, even though the contract \Vas enforceable when it was entered, the performance of the contract became' impossible or unlawful when the 1955 Order came into force. and so the contract became void under s. 5'6 of the Indian Contract Act. [75B-D] ·.:~The doctrine of fru~~ration of contract is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract b)r reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act · agr°ced to be done and hence comes within the purview of s. 56 of the 'Jndian Contract Act1 It should be noticed that s. 56 lays down rule of positive law and does not ]eave the matter to be determined ·according to the intention of ithe parties. In Engli!ijl l:l\v the question of frustration of contract bas been treated by courts as n question of cons!ruCtiOn depending upcn the true intention of tho parl ics. In Contrast, the statut6ry provisions coi;itained in s. 5,6 of the Indian \_,0ntrar-t Act laY down positive rule of la\v and English authoritici; cannot therefore be of direct nssistance, though they h;ive persuasive value in sho\\fug how English courts have approached and decided cases ur\der simifar circumstances. [750; 77H; 78A-BJ

Denny. Mott and Dickson Ltd. v. James B. Fraser & Co,, Ltd., [l944] A.C. 265~ British· Movietonews Ltd. v. London and District Cinemas Ltd., [1951] 1 K.B. 190; House of Lords, [19521 A.C. 166 at 185, referred to.

(iii) The licens.ing authod!y could have given written permission for disposal of goods under cl. 1 of the notification but the condition imposed in the IiCence, -in the present case was special condition jmposed under c1. (v) o'f paragraph (a) of the nOtification and there was no optlion giVCJl under this clause for the licensing authority to modify the condition of t!10 licence prohibiting d,isposa! of the goods. [78D--E]

(iv) The appellant was no1 under obligation. to· have purchased the good~ from the open marl"et and supplied it to the respondent. Under the contract the quality of the goods to be sold was of specific description as described therein. The doctrine of frustration of contract cannot apply where the event which is alleged to have frustrated the contract arises from the act or election of party, i.e., to .. self induced frustration". This principle could no¢ be applied. to the pre'Sent case for there \Vas no choice or election. left to the ·appellant to supply the goods other' than under the terms of the contract. [78G; 79C--'D]

Maritilne National Fish, Litnited v. Ocean Traw!qrs', Li'mUed, [1935] A.C. 524, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 1965.

Civil Appeal No. 479 of

Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 16, 1962 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 367 of 1958.

H. R. Gokhale and S. Balakrishnan, for the appellant.

R. Thiagarajan and T. R. Sangameswaran,

for respondent

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the ·Madras High Court dated March 16, 1962 in A.S. No. 367 of 1958.

The appellant c.arr,es on business in the manufacture and sale of coffee powder. He was for this purpose importing chicory

under actual user's licence issued by the Government. The con-signment of chicory in question was consignment of 24~- tons-495 cases which arrived at Madras port by "S. S. Alwaki" in December, 1955. Exhibit B-9 was the licence under which the consignment was imported. The goods were cleared by the appellant on December 20, 1955. The case of the respondent wa.s that the appellant agreed to sell the consignment to him under Ex. A-l dated November 26, 1955 after ·taking an advance of Rs. 7,500/-. The contract was, however, entered into in the name of the first defendant and. P.W. 2 acted as broker in the transaction. The respondent paid another sum of Rs. 20,000/-on December 23, 1955 after the goods arrived and were cleared on the representation that the delivery would be given in one month. Defendant No. 1 executed letter, Ex. A-2 in this con-nection but thereafter owing to rise in prices the appellant com-mitted default. The suit was contested by the first defendant on the ground that the contract was illegal and therefore void. The case of the second defendant was that he had nothing to do with the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant and, in any case, the contract for sale of chicory was illegal and void ab initio as contravening the provisions of the licence granted to him for the import of chicory. The trial court held, upon examination of the evidence, that both defendants 1 and 2 undertook with the plaintiff to fulfil the terms of the con-tract. On the question of legality of the contract the trial court held that as the contravention of the terms of the licence by the sale of the imported goods would entail only an administrative penalty, the sale cannot be held to be prohibited. by law and the contract was therefore legal contract binding on j:Joth the parties. The trial court found that the date of the breach of the contract was February 14, 1956 and granted decree in favour of the plaintiff ngainst both the defendants for sum of Rs. 35,640/-. Two appeals were filed in the Madras High Court against the judgment of the trial court-A.S. No. 3.67 of 1958 by the second defendant and A.S. No. 363 of 1959 by the first defendant The appeals were heard together by the H1gh Court which by its judgment dated March 16, 1962 allowed the appeal of the first defendant-AS. No. 363 of 1959 and dismissed the suit as against him. As regards the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant the High Court reduced the amount of damages to the sum of Rs. 23,265 /-. The High Court agreed with the finding of the trial Judge that the contract for the sale of imported chicory was entered into by the respondent directly with the second defendant and the second defendant was liable for its breach. As regards the legality of the contract, the High Court took the view that it could not be regarded as contract prohibited by any law and so it was valid and binding between tJte parties and the plain-tiff could properly sustain an action for damages for its breach .

This licence is issued subject to the condition that the goods will be utilised only for consumption as raw ma1erial or accessories in the licence holder's factory and that no portion thereof will be sold to any party.

(Signed)

For Chief Controller of Imports.

This licence was granted under Government of India, late Com-merce Department Notification No. 23. ITC/ 43 dated July l, 1943 made under Rule 84 ( 3) of the Defence of India Rules which was intended to "prohibit bringing into British India by sea, land or air from any place outside India of any goods of the description specified in 'the schedule (hereto annexed) except the following ........ :

Sub-Clause XII :-Any goods of the description specified in Part IV of the Schedule which are covered by special licence issued by. an Import Trade Con-troller appointed in this behalf by the Central Govern-ment."

of the description

Imported chicory is one of the goods described in Part IV. The effect of the notification is that if there is special licence for the importing of chicory there would be no prohibition against its import. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 194 7 provided for the continuance of the notifi-cations previously issued under the Defence of India Rules. sections 3, 4 and 5 of that Act are to the following effect :

"3. Powers to prohibit or restrict imports and ex-ports.-( 1) The Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling, in all cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the order,-

( a) the import, export, carriage coastwise or ship-ment as ships' stores 9f goods of any specified description; (b) the bringing into any port or place in British India of goods of any specified description in-tended to be taken out of British India without being removed from the ship or conveyance in which they are being carried.

(2) All goods to which any order under sub-sec-tion ( 1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or expprt has been prohibited or restricted under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and all

the provisious of that Act shall haw effect accordingly, except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word 'shall' therein the word 'mav' were sub-stituted. •

( 3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the aforesaid Act. the Central Government may, by order published in the Oflicial Gazette, prohibit, restrict or impose conditions on the clearance, whether for home consump·tion or for shipment abroad, of any goods or .cJass of goods imported into British India.

4. All orders made under rule 84 of 1hc Defence of India Rules or that rule as continued in force by the Emergency Provisions (Continuance) Ordinance, 1946. and in force immediately before the ·commencement of this Act shall, so far as thcv arc not inconsis'lcnt with the provisions of 1his Act, ·continue in force and be ·deemed to have been made under this Act.

5. If any person contravenes any order made or deemed to have been made under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any confiscation or penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. 1878, as applied by sub-section (2) of scclion 3, be punishable with imprisonment for tem1 which may extend to one year, or with tine. or with both."

·On March 6, 1948 the Central Government issued notification under sub-r. (3) of r. 84 of the Defence of Jnclja Rules which reads as follows :

"No. 2-ITC/ 48-ln exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (I) and sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (XVIII of 1947) the Central Government is pleased to make the following order, namely,

(a) Any officer issuing licence under clauses VIII to XIV of the Notification of the Government of India in the late Department of Commerce No. 23-ITC./43 dated the !st July 1943 may issue the same subject to one or more of the condi-tions stated below :

(i) That goods covered by the licence shall not b~ disposed of or otherwise dealt with or without the written pennission of the Iicens-in2 authority or any person duly authorised b): it.

(ii) That tlic goods covered b.y the licence on importation shall nat be sold or distributed

at price more than that which may be specified in any directions attached to the licence.

(iii) That the applicant for licence shall execute bond for complying 1he terms subject to which licence may be granted. (iv) That the licence shall not be· transferable except in accordance with the permission of the licensing authority or person duly authorised by it ( v) That such other conditions may be imposed which the licensing authority considers to be expedient from the administrative point of view and which are not inconsisterrt with the provisions of the said Act.

(b) Where licensee is found to have contravened the order or the terms and conditions embodied in or accompanying licence, the appropriate 0 licensing authori1y or the Chief Controller of Imports may notify him that, without prejudice to any penalty to which he may be liable under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 194 7 (XVUI of 1947) or any other enactment for the time being in force, he shall either perma-E nently or for specified period, be refused any further licence for import of goods.

( c) Where an Importer is found guilty of contraven-tion of the proviso to the said notification or of any orders or terms or conditions embodied in or accompanying licence or an application for license or any other import trade control rules or regulations duly promulgated the appropriate licensing authority or the Chief Controller of Imports may natify him that, without prejudice to any penalty to which he may be liable under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act 1947 (XVIII of 194 7) or any other enactment for the time being in force, he shall either perma-nently or for specified period be refused any license for import of goods."

By s. 4, of Act 4 o.f 1960 there was an amendment of certain provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (Act 11 XVIII of 194 7). By s. 4 of the Amending Act the words "Or any condition of licence gran1ed under any such order" were introduced after the clause "any orde~ made or deemed to have been made under this Act."

On December 7, 1955, the Imports (Control) Order was promulgated by 1he Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by ss. 3 and 4A of the Imports and Ex pons (Control) Act, 1947. Clause 3 of this Order prohibited import of goods except in accordance with licence issued by specified authori-ties. Clause 5 authorised imposition of conditions under which goods could be imported. Clause 5 provides as follows :

"Conditions of Licence.-(!) The licensin_g autho-rity issuing licence under this Order may issue the same subject to one or more of the conditions stated below:

(i) that the goods covered by the licence shall not be disposed of, except in the manner prescribed by the licensing authority, or otherwise dealt with, without the written permission of the licens-ing authority or any person duly authorised by it; (ii) that the goods covered by the licence on importa-tion shall not be sold or distributed at price exceeding that which may be specified in any directions attached to the licence;

(iii) that the applicant for licence shall execute bond for complying with the tcnns subject to which licence may be granted.

(2) licence ~ranted under this Order may con-tain such ather conditions. not inconsistent with the Act or this Order, as the licensing authority may deem fit.

the

(3) It shall be deemed to be condition of every such licence, that :

( i) no person shall transfer and no person shall acquire by transfer any licence issued by the licensin~ authority except under and in accord-ance with the written permission of the authority which granted the licence or of any other person empowered in this behalf by such authority; (ii) that the goods for the impon of which licence is granted shal! be the property of the licensee at the time of import and thereafter upto the time of clearance through Customs: (iii) the ooods for the import of which licence is aranted shall be new goods unless otherwise ~tated in the licence. ··

( 4) The liC<111see shall comply with all conditior imposed or deemed to be imposed under this clause.~

Notification No. 23. ITC/43 dated July 1, 1943 was repealed under clause 12 but the proviso to that clause saved the operation of all licences previously issued and stated that they must be deemed w be issued under the 1955 Order. Clause 12 reads as follows:

"12. Repeals.-The Orders contained in the notifi-B cations specified in Schedule IV are hereby repealed :

Provided that anything done or any action taken, including any appointment made or licence issued under any of the aforesaid Orders, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of this Order.

Schedule IV .

Notifications repealed

1. Notification No. 23-ITC/ 43, dated the !st July, 1943 issued by the late Department of Commerce, as amended.

2. Notification No. 2-ITC/ 48, dated 1948, issued by the late Ministry of Commerce.

6th March,

On the basis of these provisions it was c:Ontended by Mr. Gokhale on behalf of the appellant that the contract which is the subject-matter of the suit was unlawful and the respondent cannot claim damages for breach of such contract. It was not disputed by Mr. Qok:hale that the contract between the parties was entered into on November 26, 1955 before the coming into force of the Imports (Control) Order. It was nevertheless argued that breach of the conditions of the licence was punishable under s. 5 of Act XVllI of 194 7 as it stood at the relevant time and therefore the contract was illegal and no claim for the breach thereof was maintainable. The contention of the appellant was that the contravention of the terms of the licence issued nnder the notification dated March 6, 1948 was contravention of the notification itself within the meaning of s. 5 of Act XVllI of 1947 and was punishable. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is clear that s. 5 before its amendment only penalised the contravention of any order made or deemed to have been made under the Act. It is true that licence was granted by virtue of stat\ltory notification dated March 6, 1948 issued under the Defence of India Rules and later deemed to have been issued under Act XVIII of 1947. Notification No. 23-ITC/43, dated July 1, 1943 merely provides that. no gOO<ls shall be imported eKcept the goods covered by special licences issued by an authorised

officer. Notification No. 2-ITC/48, dated March 6, 194:l authorises the licensing ofhcer to impose one or more conditions prescribed by that order and the licensing officer has therefore power to impose conditions in U1c licence issued by him, but if the licensee contravenes the conditions imposed by th~ licence it is difficult to hold that it is no1 merely contravention of the conditions of licence but there ;, contravention of the terms of the notification and so the provisions of s. 5 of Act XVIII of 1947 are attracted. Reference was made on behalf of the appel-lant to the amendment made of s. 5 of Act XVIJI of 1947 bv the Amendin~ Act 4 of I 960. By tl1c Amending Act s. 5 of Act XVIII of 194 7 was :u11endcd so as to include con1ravcntion of condition of licence granted under any order as an offence under s. 5 of the Act. It is not. however permissible, in the cir-curnstanccs (~~ the present case. to construe the language \)f s. ) of the parent Act with the aid of the Amending Act (Act 4 of 1960). It is not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the Amending Act of 1'160 i.s something in the nature of Parliamentary exposition of th" meaning of s. :; as it stood in the parent Act. It follows therefore that on the material date breach of the conditiOn of licence was not tantamount to breach of the statutory order within the meaning o.f s. 5 of Ac1 XVIII of 1947. The view that we haYe expressed is borne out bY the decision of this Coun in Fas1 Tndia Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta(') in which it was held by the majority judgment that an infringement of the condi-tion of licence was not equivalent to an infringement of the two orders dated July I, 1943 and March 6, 1948 i.e .. N~. 23-ITC/41 and 2-JTC/48 made under the lmpons and Exoons (Control) Act, 1947 and therefore the provisioQs of s. 167(8) of the Se:i Custom.s Act were not attracted. We accordingly reject the argu-ment of Mr. Gokhale on this aspect of the case.

We pass on io consider the next contention put forward on behalf of the appellant, namely, that in any event the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 had come into force on December 7, l 955 and the pcrfonnance of the contract became illegal after 1hat date. It was pointed out that the goods arrived at the Madras port on December 13, 1955 and were cleared on December 20. 1955. Reference was made to the conditions imposed in the licence, Ex. B-9 that "the goods will be utilised only for con.sump-1 ion as raw material or aceessories in the licence holder's factory and that no ponion thereof will be sold to any par'ly". It wa.s contended 1hat the appellant would be committing an offence under s. 5 of Act XVITI of 1947 if he sold the goods to tho res-. pondent in pur.;uance of the contract as the condition of the _ ___...- ..

(I) [1%1) J S.C.ll. 338 .

licence would be violated. In our opinion, the argument of the appellant is well,founded and must be accepted as correct. It is manifest that •the disposal of the imported chicory which arrived at Madrns port on December 13, 1955 was governed by the provi-sions of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 which came into force on December 7, 1955. Clause 5 ( 4) of the 1955 Order expressly provides that the licensee shall comply with all 1he condi-tions imposed or deemed to be imposed under that clause. Therefore the sale of the imported goods would be direct con-travention of cl. 5 ( 4) and under s. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 194 7 any contravention of the Act or any order made or deemed to have been made under the Act is punishable with imprisomnent up to one year or fine or both. In consequence, even though the contract was enforceable on November 26, 1955 when it was entered into, the performance of the contract bec.ame impossible or unlawful after December 7, 1955 and so ihe con-tract became void under s. 56 of the fndian Contract Act after the coming into force of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. Section 5G of the Indian Con1ract Act states :

"An agreement to do an Act impossible in itself is void.

contract to do an Act which, after the contracl· · is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or un-lawful.

Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, wi'lh reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know tO be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through the non-performance of the promise."

The doctrine of frustration of contract is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reason of supervenincr impossibility or illegality of the -act agreed to be done and .henc~ comes within 'the purview of s. 56 of the Indian Contract Act. lt should be noticed that s. 56 lays down rule of positive Jaw and does not leave 1he matter to be determined according to the inten'tion of the parties.

In English Law case of supervening illegality is . treated as an instance of frustration of contract. In Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick, Kerr & Co .. Ltd([1]), under contract made . .. . .. ill

0) (191i] A.C. 119.

July 1914, reservoir was to be constructed and to be completed in six years from 1914 subject to proviso that if the contractors should be impeded or obstructed by any cause the engineer should have power to grant an extension of time. Under the powers conferred by the Defence of 1hc Realm Acts and Regula-tions. the contractors were obliged to cease work on the reser-voir by order of the Ministry of Munitions in 1916. The House of Lurds held that the contract was frustrated by supervening impossibility, and 1hat the provision for extending the time did not apply to the prohibition by the Ministry. Lurd Finlay, L.C. said that the interruption was "of such character and. duration. tha·t it vitally and fundamentally changed the conditions of the contract, and could not possibly have been in the contemplation of the parties to the contract when it was made." In subsequent case-Denny, Motr and Dickson Ltd. v. James B, Fraser & Co., Ltd.(') contract for the sale and purchase of timber contained an option for the appellants to purchase timber-yard (which wa_, meanwhile let to them) if the contract was terminated on no:1cc given by either party. By the Control of Timber (No. 4) Order. 1939, further trading transaction' under the contract be-came illegal, but in 1941 the appellants gave notice to terminate the contract, and also to exercise their option to purcha'c the timber-yard. The House of Lords held that the option to pur-chase was dependent on the trading agreement, that the 1939 Order had operated to frustrate the contract, and that, conse-quently, the option to purchase lapsed upon the frustration since it arose only if the contract was tem1inated by notice. At pa~c 274 of the Report. Lord Wright made the following observations :

"It is now I think well settled that where there is frustration dissolution of contract occurs automati-. cally. It does not depend, as does rescission of con-tract on the ground of repudiation or breach, on the choice or election of either party. It depends on what actually has happened on its effect on the possibility of perfomiing the ·contract. Where. as generally hap-pc1Ls. and actually happened in the present case. one pa11y claims that there has been frustration and the other party contests it. the court decides the issue and decides it ex pnst facln on the actual circumstances of ~he case. The dat3 for decision are. on the one hand, the temis and construction of the contract. read in the light of the then existing circumstances. and on the other hand 1he events which have occurred. . ...... · . · . I find the theory of the basis of the rule in Lord Sumner'< pregnant statement (Joe. cit.) that the doctrine of frus-tration i~ really-a device by which the rules as to abso-

(!) [!9l4J A.C. 76~.

lute c0ntracts are reconciled with the special exception which justice demands. Though it has been constantly said by high authority, including Lord Sumner, that the explanation of the rule is to be found in .the theorv that it depends on an implied condition of the contract,. that is really no explanation. It only pushes back the prob-lem single stage. It leaves the question what is 1he reason for implying term. Nor can I reconcile that theory with the view that the result does not depend on what the parties might, or would as hard bargainers, have agreed. The doctrine is invented by the court in order to supplement the defects of the actual contract. The parties did not anticipate fully and completely, if at all, or provide for what actually happened."In the recent case of British Movietonews Ltd. v. London and District Cinemas Ltd.('), Denning, L.J. in the Court of Appeal took the view that "the court really exercises qualifying power-a power to qualify the absolute, lrteral or wide terms of the contract-in order to do what is just and reasonable in the new situation". "The day is gone," the learned Judge went on to say, "when we can excuse an unforeseen injustice by saying to the sufferer 'it is your own folly, you ought not to have passed that form of words. You ought to have put in clause to protect yourself.' We no longer credit party with the fore-sight of Prophet or his lawyer with the draftsmanship of Chalmers. We realise that they have their limitations and make allowances accordingly. It is better thus. The old maxim re-minds us that he who clings to the letter clings to the dry and barren shell and misses the truth and substance of the matter. We have of late paid heed to this warning, and we must pay like heed now." The decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed by the House of Lords(') and Viscount SirrC'n expressed dis-approval of the view taken by Denning, L.J. At page 184 of the Report, Viscount Simon said :

"The principle remains the same. Particular appli-cations of it may greatly vary and theoretical lawyers may debate whether the rule should be regarded as aris-ing from implied term or because the basis of the contract no longer exists. In any view, it is ques-tion of construction as Lord Wright pointed out in Constantine's case and as has been repeatedly asserted by other masters of law."

In English Law therefore the question of frustration of con-tract has been treated by courts as ques1;,ion of construction fl) {1951] 1K.B.190 · !2) [1957] A.C. 166 at 184 .

depending upon the true intention of the parties. lu contrast, the statutory provisions contained in s. 56 of the Indian Contract Act lay down positive rule of Jaw and English authorities can-not therefore be of direct assistance, though they have persuasive Yalue.in showing how English courts have approached and decid-ed cases under similar circum~cances.

lu contrast,

Cow1sel on behalf of U1e respondent, however, contended that the contract was not impossible of performance and the appellant cannot •take recourse to the provisions of s. 56 of the Indian Contract Act. It was contended that under cl. 1 of the lmpon Trade Control Order No. 2-lTC/48, dated March 6, I 948 it was open to ~he· appellant to apply for written perrnis· sion of the licensing authority to sell the chicory. It is not shown by the appellant that he applied for such permission and the licensing authority had refused such permission. It was therefore maintained on behalf of the respondent that the contract was not impossible of performance. We do not think there is any sub-stance in this argument. It is true that the licensing authority could have given written pcrmis.,ion for disposal of th" chicury under cl. I of Order No. 2-ITC/48. dated March 6, 1948 but the condition imposed in Ex. B-9 in the present case is special condition imposed ,under cl. (v) of paragraph (a) of Order No. 2-ITC/48, dated March 6, 1948 and there was no option given under ·this clause for the Jicensin~ authority to modify the condi-tion of liccnec that " the goods will be utilised only for consump· tion as raw material or accessories in the licence holder's factor) and that no portion thereof will be sold to any party... was further argued on behalf of the respondent that, in any event, the appellant could have purchased chicory from the open market and supplied it to the respondent in terms of the contract. There is no substance in this argument also. Under the contract the quality of chicory to be sold was chicory of specific description-"Egbcrts Chicory. packed in 495 wooden cases, each case con-taining 2 tins of 56 lb. nett". The delivery of the chicory was to be <>iven by ·•s. S. Alwaki" in December. 1955. It is manifes'I that the contract, Ex. A-1 was for sale of certain specific J!OOds as described therein and it was not open to the appellant to supply chicory of anv other description. Reference was made on behalf of the respondent to the decision in . Maritime National Fish. Limited v. Ocean Trawlers, Limited('). In that case. the res-pondents chartered to the appellants steam trawler fittc-0 with an oiter trawl. Both parties knew at the time of the contract that it was ·illegal to use an otter trawl without licence from ~e Canadian government. Some n_10nths later the app~llant:s appl!ed for licences for five irawlers which they were operatmg. mcludmg

(I) (19Jj] A.C. 524.

the respondents' trawler. They were informed that only three licences would be granted, and were requested to state for which of the three trawlers they desired to have licences. They named three trawlers other than the respondents'; and then claimed that they were no longer bound by the· charter-party as its object had been frustrated. It was held by the Judicial Committee that the failure of the contract was the result of the appellants' own elec-tion, and that there was therefore no frustration of the contract. We think the principle of this case applies to the Indian law and the provisions of s. 56 of the Indian Contract Act cannot apply to case of "self-induced frustration". In other words, the doc-trine of frustration of contract cannot apply where the evenrwhich is alleged to have frustrated the contract arises from the act or election of party. But for the reasons already given, we hold that this principle cannot be applied to the present case for there was no choice or election left to the appellant to supply chicory other than under the tenns of the contract. On the other hand, fuere was positive prohibition imposed by the licence upon the appellant not to sell the imported chicory to any other party but he was pennitted to utilise it only for consumption as raw mate-rial in his own factory. We are accordingly of the opinion that Counsel for 1he respondent has been unable to make good his argument on this aspeot of the case. For the reasons expressed we hold that this appeal should be allowed and the decree of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 367 of 1958 should be set aside and the suit brought by the respon-dent should be dismissed in its entirety. We do not propose to make any order as to costs in this appeal.

Appeal allowed_