Short Note : 1. It was a second appeal by the plaintiff against the confirming decisions of the Court’s below whereby the plaintiff's suit was decreed in part and rest of his claim was dismissed. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants invited tenders for diatary articles (bread, biscuits, etc.) in response to which the appellant submitted his tender in the prescribed form on 28-3-1966. The plaintiff supplied bread and biscuits to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that in the tender, there was a patent mistake. The rate of Rs. 6.47/- was for the bread of 8 ozs. and not for a bread of 1 kg. He brought this mistake to the notice of the defendants by letter dated 23-4-1966 and on their assurance, he had supplied bread to the defendants. He, therefore, instituted the suit for realisation of Rs. 5,414.52/- (Rs. 5,314.52/- being price of bread supplied during the period 1-4-1966 to 28-2-1967 and refund of security deposit Rs. 100). The defendants resisted the plaintiff's claim and contended that the tender correctly mentioned Rs. 6.47 for the bread of 1 kg. They denied that there was any mistake in the plaintiff's tender or that the defendants had assured him for payment at the rate now claimed by him. Held: Admittedly there is no regular contract executed by the plaintiff as required by Art. 229 (1) of the-Constitution of India. On the facts of this case, provisions of section 70 of the Contract Act will be clearly applicable. The Additional District Judge has discussed this aspect in para 11 of his judgment and held that the conditions for the applicability of section 70 of the Contract Act are present in this case. It will suffice to mention that non-compliance with Art. 229 (1) of the Contract Act will not bar the plaintiff's suit, because he had supplied the goods to the defendants who had derived the benefit. State of West Bengal v. M/s. B. K. Mandai and Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779 , Mulamchand v. State of M. P., AIR 1968 SC 1218 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.