Case: M/S. Bharat Barrel &amp; Drum Mfg. Co Vs. L. K. Bose &amp; Ors

inconsistently. It may perhaps be said that if Lalta Prasad had been examined he might have explained the inconsistency. But as already stated Lalta Prasad had ample opportunity through his counsel to explain the said inconsistency. If that inconsistency had been explained by the companys counsel during the hearing it cannot be doubted that the Controller would have considered such explanation tendered by counsel. That being so, the refusal of the Controller to record Lalta Prasads evidence cannot be said to have precluded the company from offering an explanation of the said inconsistency. Nor can it be said that the refusal amounted to any breach of natural justice. Since the procedure for inquiry was left to be devised by the Controller and the procedure followed by him was not in any way in contravention of the said consent order nor contrary to natural justice the contention urged by Mr. Bishan Narain must be rejected. 13. The next contention of Mr. Bishan Narain was that on the question of refund of the excess charges the impugned order suffered from an error of law apparent on the record. The question is what is an error of law apparent on the record. In Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Ballo Spinning and Weaving Co., 1923 AC, 480: (AIR 1923 PC 66), Lord Dunedin observed that an error on the face of an award means that the Court must first find whether there is any legal proposition which is the basis of such an award.He also said that where an award is challenged upon such a ground it is not permissible to read words into it or to draw inferences and the award or the order must be taken as it stands. Tucker, T. said the same thing in James Clark (Brush Materials) Ltd. v. Carters (Merchants) Ltd., 1944-1 KB 566. Reading the impugned order it is difficult to say what legal proportion it contains in respect of which it can be said that there is an error of law apparent on the record.The issue before the Controller was whether in refusing to give the refund of the said excess the 6th respondent guilty of obstructing the implementation of the order, dated May 1/2,1962 or of preventing the appellant company from taking delivery of the said goods. It is true that the Controller had on more than one occasion directed the 6th respondent to deduct the said excess from its pro forma invoice and the 6th respondent had in fact expressed its willingness to deduct it. The dispute between the parties was within a circumscribed compass viz. whether the appellant company should first withdraw the suit. The appellant company would not withdraw the suit and hence the controversy. But then it is not possible to say that there was no difficulty in the way of the 6th respondent in deducting straightway the said excess from its invoice, for, as already stated, the appellant company had stated different sums of such excess at different times. The Controller had not fixed the exact amount of the said excess and had not directed as to when and on what condition the appellant companys suit should be withdrawn. If in these circumstances the Controller finds that the appellant company should not have insisted on the deduction before withdrawing its suit even if a Court were to come to a different conclusion it certainly is not a case of an error apparent on the face of the record. 14. That takes us to the third and the last contention viz., that the impugned order that the appellant company wanted to pick and choose was without evidence. The order was based on the finding that it was for the first time in its letter dated May 8, 1962 that the appellant company claimed that it would only accept goods of standard and merchantable quality. That conclusion, in our view, cannot be said to be without evidence. As explained by the High Court, the appellant company, no doubt, had in its letter of April 23, 1962 claimed survey and inspection but that letter does not show that the appellant company was not willing to accept the goods in the condition in which they were in the 6th respondents godown. The demand for inspection and survey was made with a view to claim rebate in the event of the goods being found either rusty or in damaged condition. But in the letter of May 8. 1962 it would seem that the appellant company stiffened its attitude and laid down the condition that it would accept such of the goods only as were of standard and merchantable quality. As already stated long before May 8, 1962 the appellant company was well aware that the goods had become rusted as they were lying for a long time in the godown. Even the 6th respondent had complained that the goods were getting rusted. Yet. at no time before May 8, 1962 the appellant company had insisted that it would accept only those goods which were of standard and merchantable quality. It may perhaps be that the Controller could have taken the view that since the appellant company required the goods for manufacturing barrels, it was entitled to have goods of merchantable quality. At the same time it is also possible to take a different view viz., that the appellant company could have abided by the Controllers directions in his order, dated 1/2 May 1962 and could have accepted delivery under protest and if necessary claimed damages. But merely because there was the possibility of two views being taken it would not be possible to say, as was contended in the High Court, that the order was perverse. In any event, since it was for the first time in its letter of May 8, 1962 that the aforesaid demand was made by the appellant company it is impossible to say that this part of the order was without any evidence and, therefore, liable to be quashed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. It is clear from the said consent order that the Controller was not a judicial Tribunal in the sense of a Court of law and though the inquiry held by him was a quasi judicial inquiry it certainly was not a trial. It was confined to one question only, viz., whether he should reconsider the order made by him cancelling the allocation in favour of the appellant company. In order to decide that question he had to ascertain who was to be blamed as between the appellant company and the 6th respondent for non-implementation of his order, dated 1/2 May 1962. No doubt the consent order required him "to hear" the parties. But it is obvious that the order never contemplated that he should follow an elaborate procedure and take oral evidence of witnesses tendered by the parties. The order did not lay down any such procedure or any procedure at all, with the consequence that he was left to devise his own procedure. So long as the procedure devised by him gave a fair and adequate opportunity to the parties to put forward and explain their respective case such procedure would be sufficient and cannot be challenged on the ground of any contravention of natural justice. The dispute between the parties was as to the existence of an oral agreement under which the 6th respondent was to deliver 4,500 tons of steel sheets. From that arose the question whether the delivery of 1,238 and odd tons was made under the said alleged agreement or under the said release orders. It is not disputed that the Controller heard the parties on the 13th and the 18th December 1962 and the respective cases of the parties were put forward before him through counsel who, we have no doubt, made their submissions fully. The said Lalta Prasad was present at the hearing presumably giving instructions to the companys counsel. He had, therefore, ample opportunity to put forward the case of the appellant company in regard to the said alleged oral agreement. The parties also produced before the Controller such correspondence and documents as they thought proper and necessary to establish their case. There is no doubt that the letters already referred to above in which the appellant company has set out the said alleged agreement were produced before the Controller and considered by him. In these circumstances it is difficult to appreciate what difference it would have made if Lalta Prasads oral testimony had been recorded. The letters presumably contained all that he had to say in regard to the alleged agreement arrived at between him and the said Jitpal. Obviously he could not have added anything to those letters nor could he have deposed contrary to them. This position seems to have been realised by the appellant company. It was, therefore that though the Controller had rejected the application for recording the evidence of Lalta Prasad no protest was made by the appellant company or on its behalf at that stage. No such protest was also placed on record between the 18th and the 21st December 1962 when the Controller declared his order. It was only on the 5th January 1963 that the attorneys of the appellant company complained for the first time about the Controllers decision rejecting the application to record Lalta Prasads evidence alleging that the said order of the Controller was mala fide. The appellant company filed the present writ petition on January 7, 1963. It would appear from these facts that the grievance of Lalta Prasad not being allowed to give evidence was made in the letter of the 5th January 1963 to bolster up the case in the proposed writ petition that the said order of the Controller was perverse and mala fide. It is true that the Controller rejected the appellant companys case about the said oral agreement on the ground that the correspondence indicated that it had been putting up its case inconsistently. It may perhaps be said that if Lalta Prasad had been examined he might have explained the inconsistency. But as already stated Lalta Prasad had ample opportunity through his counsel to explain the said inconsistency. If that inconsistency had been explained by the companys counsel during the hearing it cannot be doubted that the Controller would have considered such explanation tendered by counsel. That being so, the refusal of the Controller to record Lalta Prasads evidence cannot be said to have precluded the company from offering an explanation of the said inconsistency. Nor can it be said that the refusal amounted to any breach of natural justice. Since the procedure for inquiry was left to be devised by the Controller and the procedure followed by him was not in any way in contravention of the said consent order nor contrary to natural justice the contention urged by Mr. Bishan Narain must be rejectedIt is true that the Controller had on more than one occasion directed the 6th respondent to deduct the said excess from its pro forma invoice and the 6th respondent had in fact expressed its willingness to deduct it. The dispute between the parties was within a circumscribed compass viz. whether the appellant company should first withdraw the suit. The appellant company would not withdraw the suit and hence the controversy. But then it is not possible to say that there was no difficulty in the way of the 6th respondent in deducting straightway the said excess from its invoice, for, as already stated, the appellant company had stated different sums of such excess at different times. The Controller had not fixed the exact amount of the said excess and had not directed as to when and on what condition the appellant companys suit should be withdrawn. If in these circumstances the Controller finds that the appellant company should not have insisted on the deduction before withdrawing its suit even if a Court were to come to a different conclusion it certainly is not a case of an error apparent on the face of the record14. That takes us to the third and the last contention viz., that the impugned order that the appellant company wanted to pick and choose was without evidenceThe order was based on the finding that it was for the first time in its letter dated May 8, 1962 that the appellant company claimed that it would only accept goods of standard and merchantable quality. That conclusion, in our view, cannot be said to be without evidence. As explained by the High Court, the appellant company, no doubt, had in its letter of April 23, 1962 claimed survey and inspection but that letter does not show that the appellant company was not willing to accept the goods in the condition in which they were in the 6th respondents godown. The demand for inspection and survey was made with a view to claim rebate in the event of the goods being found either rusty or in damaged condition. But in the letter of May 8. 1962 it would seem that the appellant company stiffened its attitude and laid down the condition that it would accept such of the goods only as were of standard and merchantable quality. As already stated long before May 8, 1962 the appellant company was well aware that the goods had become rusted as they were lying for a long time in the godown. Even the 6th respondent had complained that the goods were getting rusted. Yet. at no time before May 8, 1962 the appellant company had insisted that it would accept only those goods which were of standard and merchantable quality. It may perhaps be that the Controller could have taken the view that since the appellant company required the goods for manufacturing barrels, it was entitled to have goods of merchantable quality. At the same time it is also possible to take a different view viz., that the appellant company could have abided by the Controllers directions in his order, dated 1/2 May 1962 and could have accepted delivery under protest and if necessary claimed damages. But merely because there was the possibility of two views being taken it would not be possible to say, as was contended in the High Court, that the order was perverse. In any event, since it was for the first time in its letter of May 8, 1962 that the aforesaid demand was made by the appellant company it is impossible to say that this part of the order was without any evidence and, therefore, liable to be quashed9. In order to appreciate the first contention it is necessary first to consider the content of the principles of natural justice. That question has been ther of a number of decisions. It is now well settled that while considering the question of breach of the principles of natural justice the court should not proceed as if there are any inflexible rules of natural justice of universal application. The Court therefore has to consider in each case whether in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case, the nature of the issues involved in the inquiry, the nature of the order passed and the interests affected thereby, a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard was furnished to the person affected. Inl Government Board v. Arlidge, 1915 AC120 Lord Parmoor observed as follows :Where, however, the question of procedure is raised in a hearing, before some tribunal other than a court of law, there is no obligation to adopt the regular forms of judicial procedure. It is sufficient that the case has been heard in a judicial spirit and in accordance with the principles of substantial justice. In determining whether the principles of substantial justice have been complied with in matters of procedure regard must necessarily be had to the nature of the issue to be determined and the constitution of the Tribunal."It is thus clear that the Councils order was set aside on the footing that it had failed to hold "due inquiry" within the meaning of S. 29 and the said Rule, as contrary to the provisions of that Rule the Council had prevented Spackman from leading evidence. The decision in 1958 SCR 499  : (AIR 1957 SC 882  ) (supra), was in connection with an inquiry held under Art. 311 of the Constitution. The observations made in that case, therefore, would bear no analogy to the inquiry held by the Controller in the instant case. Neither of those two decisions, therefore, can help Mr. Bishan Narain.