Law: Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)

Section:

Sale of Goods Act (111 of 1930)--- ----5. 55---Government having purchased rice from plaintiff subsequently imposing cut of 23 per cent. in price---Validity---Government before taking such decision (imposing cut in price) neither issued any notice nor gave opportunity of hearing to plaintiff---Plaintiff's valuable right having been adversely affected by the decision of Government, he was entitled to notice hearing before imposition of cut in price of goods delivered by him---Decisions of Courts below that imposition of cut in price of goods having been made without notice to plaintiff or affording him opportunity of hearing was not valid, not suffering from any illegality did not call for interference. Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, A.-G. with Ch. Muhammad Latif Ayaz for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1993. JUDGMENT The only question of law which requires determination in this second appeal was as to whether order for imposition of cut of 23% as regards price of the rice purchased by the appellant from the respondent was validly passed. The respondent supplied rice to the appellant on 7-12-1965 and on the basis of super inspection made on 6-2-1967 it was decided to impose cut of 23% and accordingly a notice was issued to the respondent intimating him regarding the decision taken by the Department which was challenged by him in the suit. Both the Courts below have held that the super inspection made after more than one year and the impugned order for imposition of cut of 23% was made without issuance of any notice to the respondent and affording…