http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. ASLHING @ LHINGJANONG

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: L.S. JOHN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1983

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR  988            1984 SCR  (1) 863  1984 SCC  (1) 205        1983 SCALE  (2)813

ACT:      Contract-When a party writes to the opposite party that it is closing the contract, does the contract subsist ?

HEADNOTE:      The respondent who was a party to a subsisting contract with the Government for widening or a road wrote a letter to the concerned Executive Engineer stating that he was closing the  said  contract.  1  he  appellant  contended  that  the contents of the letter did not have the effect of putting an end to the contract.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: After  the letter, the contract came to an end by breach and  was no  longer  subsisting.  Acceptance  of  the letter by the authorities was unnecessary for putting an end to the  contract although  the breach  may give  rise to  an action for damages. [864 B-C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11 89 of 1982.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  the 18th December, 1981 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1980.      S  Rangarajan,   S.K.  Nandy  and  S.  Parikh  for  the Appellant.      A.K Nag for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. In  this election  appeal the only point for determination is whether at the time when respondent No. I filed  his nomination  paper he held a subsisting contract with the  Government for widening the PLP road.. While it is true that  there was  such a  contract in existence prior to 30:11.1979, respondent No. 1 wrote a 864 letter on  30.11.1979 to  the concerned  Executive  Engineer stating that he was closing the said contract. The last date for filing  nomination was 10.12.1979. It is argued that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

contents of  the said  letter does  not have  the effect  of putting an  end to  the contract.  After going  through  the contents of  the letter  it is  absolutely  clear  that  the contractor unilaterally  put an  end  to  the  contract  and informed the  Department concerned  accordingly and  also he had resigned from the contractor’s list of PWD Manipur. Thus after this  letter the contract came to an end by breach and the contract  was no  longer subsisting.  Mr. Rangarajan has submitted  some   very  nice   and  delicate  questions  for consideration. One  of them-being  that until and unless the letter is  accepted by  the  Authority  the  contract  would continue and  thus the  respondent  would  suffer  from  the disqualification.  In  our  opinion  having  regard  to  the contents of  the letter  it is  not possible  to accept  the argument of Mr. Rangarajan that the contract was subsisting. The  acceptance   of  the  letter  by  the  authorities  was unnecessary for  putting an end to the contract although the breach may  give rise  to a  cause on action for damages. No other point is raised before us. We do not find any merit in this appeal  and it  is dismissed  without any  order as  to costs. H.L. C.                                    Appeal dismissed. 865