1

Republic Medico Surgical Co. v. Union of India

IN THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

In the matter of
Republic Medico Surgical Co.
(Petitioner)
V.
Union of India
(Respondent)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HIGH COURT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
(ISHITA CHAKRABARTY)
Roll. No. 80 Semester: 1

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner

Republic Medico Surgical Co. Union of India 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 ISSUES RAISED 7 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 8 WRITTEN SUBMISSION 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11 Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner . v.

Section v. Article Co.Republic Medico Surgical Co. Number S. Versus Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner .C Code of Civil Procedure Govt.P. v. Company C. Limited No. Government HC High Court Hon’ble Honourable HL House of Lords ILR Indian Law Reports Kant Karnataka Ltd. Union of India 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & And AIR All India Reporter Art.

v.5 Sepulchre Bros. Scot Law Commission No. Katha Venkataswami. Akaria Investments Ltd (2010) Destiny 1 Ltd v. Sait Khushal Das Jagjivan Das Mehta. v. Colson. 359. 1908 BOOKS  Anson’s law of Contracts.  Chitty on Contracts  Law of Contracts. LLyods TSB Bank plc Holwell Securities Ltd v. AIR 1942 Mad 13 STATUTES:  Indian Contract Act. Hughes (1974) 1 WLR 155 Kamisetti Subbaih v. (1983) 2 AC 34: (1982) 2 WLR 264 (HL) British & American Telegraph Co v. Hughes Holwell Securities Ltd. ILR (1903) 27 Mad 355. v.144 [1993] para 4. Union of India 4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES JUDICIAL DECISIONS          Brinkbon Ltd v Stahag Stahl Und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft M. 29th Ed.Republic Medico Surgical Co.. (1871) LR 6 Ex 108 Crest Nicholson (Londinium) Ltd v. 1872  Code of Civil Procedure.B. Janet O’Sullivan & Jonathan Hillad Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner .H.

Republic Medico Surgical Co. Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner . v. Union of India 5 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.

made an offer for the supply of silt equipages to the Executive Engineer Southern Gauging Division Bangalore. 5. was addressed to the Defendant Company. Bangalore City. No. There was a breach of contract on the part of the Defendant Company with respect to the balance to be paid. 3.Republic Medico Surgical Co. Union of India 6 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The present case is an Appeal directed against the order passed by the Bangalore City Court. The Appellant Company in the present case. in response to a tender released by the aforesaid Company. The tender was accepted by the Defendant Company for the supply of silt equipages for which the Defendant was liable to pay the price of Rs. 4. 150 of 1972 on the file.1 in O. 6.86. The Offer though made to the Southern Gauging Division Bangalore. v. The Appellant initially brought a suit against the Defendant Company in the Court of The Principal Civil Judge. 32897. Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner . 2. on Issue No.S.

Whether the Postal rule is legally valid? Also whether the Cause of Action arose in Bangalore and subsequently the Bangalore City Court has any jurisdiction on the above matter? SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner .Republic Medico Surgical Co. v. Union of India 7 ISSUES RAISED 1. Whether a Contract exists between the parties? 2.

The Cause of Action takes place in Bangalore and hence the Bangalore city court has jurisdiction over the matter – Since a contract is binding on both the parties.8 Republic Medico Surgical Co. The Postal rule of the place where the contract is concluded is not legally valid – Since it puts the offeree at an advantageous position as compared to the offeror who has no knowledge of when the contract has risen.e. where the offeror resides. Communication of acceptance is necessary for a contract and it is one of essential of contract in general term – In the present case there is Offer since the tender offer has been addressed to the Defendant Company and subsequently accepted by an overt manifestation (notification of acceptance). 3. WRITTEN PLEADINGS Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner . 2. Hence the Cause of Action lies with the Bangalore City court. i. Union of India 1. it comes into existence where the acceptance is received. v.

the proposal is said to be accepted.Republic Medico Surgical Co. Here though the offer was initially made with the intention of supplying silt equipages to the Executive Engineer. v. A proposal. the same was addressed to the Defendant Company.5 4 Holwell Securities Ltd. Hughes (1974) 1 WLR 155 Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner . it was laid down that the general rule is that whatever be the man’s intention. Southern Gauging Division Bangalore.2(b) Indian Contract Act 2 Also in Destiny 1 Ltd v.1 In Crest Nicholson (Londinium) Ltd v. becomes a promise.2 ISSUE 2(A) – Legality of the Postal Rule Several Jurists have put forth views regarding scrapping of this position and adopting the principle of consensus or “meeting of minds” in reference to the postal communications since it favours the offeree who knows the exact position of the agreement. where it is laid down that the Contract comes into existence as soon as the Acceptance is dispatched so as to be out of the reach of the acceptor.144 [1993] para 4. Hughes (1974) that the postal rule provides the offeror protection by requiring actual notification of the acceptance. the Indian Contract Act adopts a peculiar modification. if he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he wishes to act upon the terms proposed and the other party accepting the same enters into a contract with him. v. It was held in the case Holwell Securities Ltd. According to the Indian Contract Act. The English Law also has its own 1 S. Akaria Investments Ltd (2010) . v. when accepted. 3 Again. Acceptance and Consideration together constitute the essentials of a contract. the post office is not an agent to whom the acceptance can be communicated hence the rule applying to telex should be applied here too.4 Unlike the English law. the man conducting himself that way would be bound. Union of India 9 ISSUE 1– Contract is complete when acceptance is received Offer. LLyods TSB Bank plc 3 Scot Law Commission No. when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto.

but the acceptor becomes bound only when the letter is received by the proposer. Union of India 10 dissenting judgements regarding the place where the contract is concluded such as the ruling by Lord Bramwell in the case of British & American Telegraph Co v. as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. it is a continuing act until it reaches the person to whom it is communicated and thus can be taken to be made also at the place where the acceptance is received.4 Communication when complete. or where the Cause of Action wholly or in part arises.8Again. (1983) 2 AC 34: (1982) 2 WLR 264 (HL) 9 Sepulchre Bros. a contract is an agreement binding on both the parties. It is contended that the offer was made at Bangalore hence a part of the Cause of Action arises in Bangalore.20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner . the Court held that although an acceptance by post is complete when the letter is posted. ILR (1903) 27 Mad 355. Colson 5 According to the Indian Contract Act.C10. Sait Khushal Das Jagjivan Das Mehta. 8 Brinkbon Ltd v Stahag Stahl Und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft M. is not valid. v. suits for recovery or compensation can be instituted where the defendant/s reside/s.6 Whereas.Republic Medico Surgical Co. Hughes.B. the proposer becomes bound as soon as the acceptor sends his letter of acceptance. v. Indian Contract Act. (1871) LR 6 Ex 108 6 S. Katha Venkataswami.H. which was never delivered. Katha Venkataswami. ISSUE 2(B) – Where the Cause of Action arises and the court that has Jurisdiction. 5 Lord Bramwell in British & American Telegraph Co v.1872 7 Kamisetti Subbaih v.. Colson. it was held that the mere posting of a notice of acceptance to purchase the land. v. The communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer when it is put in a course of transmission so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. In Kamisetti Subbaih v.7 This was affirmed in a decision passed by the House of Lords in Brinkbon Ltd v Stahag Stahl Und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft.9 In Holwell Securities Ltd v.P. the Madras HC held that the Contract should be complete at the place where the Acceptance is received. AIR 1942 Mad 13 10 S. Sait Khushal Das Jagjivan Das Mehta. 359. According to the C. in Sepulchre Bros.

authorities cited. the petitioner humbly requests the Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:1. A writ of Certiorari passed considering the failure of the City Court in exercising its jurisdiction. 2015 . Bangalore. i. The balance amount be returned to the Appellant. v. The appeal be admitted 2. And. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore in the lights of the facts stated. 4. COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ISHITA CHAKRABARTY Memorandum on Behalf of the Petitioner OCTOBER 5. The Legality of the Postal Rule of Communication be reviewed. Equity & Good Conscience. All of which is most humbly prayed.Republic Medico Surgical Co. since only then is “consensus ad idem” established and the contract becomes binding on both the parties. arguments advanced. 3.e. pass any order or decree in the favour of the petitioner as the Court may deem fit in the lights of Justice. Union of India 11 Moreover the Contract is concluded at the place where the acceptance has been received.