the respondent can collect the enhanced prices in respect of the left-over quantities meant to be supplied during the first year, but which are supplied in the next year? In my opinion, the answer should be in the negative. Undoubtedly, under Clause No.4(iv) of the agreement, the respondent has undertaken the obligation of carrying forward the backlog supplies to the succeeding months within the term or in the extended period. However, it relieved itself of the obligation supplying the backlog supplies at the expiration of the term or during the extended period. By this clause, the petitioner may not enforce upon the respondent the obligation to supply the agreed quantity if the latter fails to adhere to the same after the completion of the term of 12 months. However, when the respondent is prepared and has chosen to supply the backlog quantities beyond the term, the said clause does not enable it to insist that the petitioner should pay the higher price for such backlog supplies. Even under Clause No.9(iv), the petitioner’s obligation to pay the enhanced prices is in respect of the supplies to be made in the second and the third years. In my opinion, this clause cannot be read in such a way as to confer undue benefit on the respondent for its failure to supply the agreed quantities of Barytes during the previous year. Such a construction of the above mentioned clause of the agreement would place a premium on the inability of the respondent to supply the agreed quantities during the previous year. The respondent being an
