1977 INSC 0129
                                       Surendranath Sud (Dead) By L. Rs.

                                                           Vs

                                      Standard Vacuum Oil Co. and Others

                                      Civil Appeal Nos. 1374-1348 of 1968

                          (R. S. Sarkarkaria, V. R. Krishna, Iyer, Jaswant Singh JJ)

                                                      09.03.1977

                                                     JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. ­

1. These two appeals by special leave stem from a suit instituted by the appellant (now represented
by his legal representative, his widow) for rendition of accounts against the defendant-respondent,
the Standard Vacuum Oil Company Ltd. The respondent company has been taken over by the
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. We have heard Counsel on both sides. It is unfortunate that the
plaint has been drafted in a confused manner and the written statement, probably misled by the
plaint, has also not brought out the real contention between the parties. Sorting out the documents
and the other evidence in the case, we have discovered that the foundation for the action is Ex. P-
9(a), a contract between Mr. Sud the plaintiff and the S.V.O.C., the defendant. The courts, not
having proper leadings before them, have not been able to approach the real issue arising in the
case. The party mainly responsible for this misfortune is probably the plaintiff himself.

2. Even so, looking at the justice of the matter in the light of Ex. P-9(a), we are satisfied that the
defendant-respondent should pay the plaintiff-appellant an amount which would represent the
probable compensation in lieu of the claim made. We are overlooking the inartistic drafting, we are
slurring over the true nature of the claim, we are not strictly interpreting the terms of the contract;
but in an endeavour to do justice to the plaintiff (now represented by his legal representatives) we
feel that it is appropriate to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000 grounding ourselves on
a fair understanding of the terms of Ex. P-9(a) and the surrounding circumstances. The
quantification part is rough and ready because, in the circumstances, nothing else than an intelligent
guess can be made.

3. In the result, we direct the respondent 1 to pay the appellants a sum of the Rs. 12,000 in full and
final settlement of all claims under the agreements Exs. P-8, P-9 and P-9(a). This sum shall be
payable within three months from to-day. In the circumstances, we direct that the parties do bear
their costs throughout.

</html