JUDGMENT Jain, J. -- 1. This letters patent appeal is preferred from the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29.3.1994 in F.A. No. 117/85 confirming the judgment and decree of trial Court by the District Judge Raipur on 6.4.1985 in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1981. 2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this appeal which admit of no dispute lie in a narrow campass : The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Madras Fertilizers Limited is a Government Company manufacturing fertilizers. The products manufactured by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, are marketed under the name "Vijay" through dealers appointed for the purpose including appellant herein, Chhattisgarh Trading Company. Letter appointing the appellant reserved unilaterial right in favour of respondent to fix and revise prices at which the appellant shall pay for "Vijay" products purchased by them and the maximum consumer price at which the product shall be sold by them. It was alleged by respondent No. 1 that the price of "Vijay" products are fixed by the Government under the Fertilizers Control Order from time to time. On 9th and 10th June, 1980, the respondent No. 1 sold 110 tonnes of Complex Fertilizers and 10 tonnes of Urea to the appellant. 3. It transpired that the Government of India revised upward the price of Complex Fertilizers and Urea on 8th June, 1980. The revised price was published in all leading newspapers. It has been stated by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that they, in addition, intimated the appellant regarding the said increase, vide letter dated 23.6.1980. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the difference owing to revision of prices by Government amounted to Rs. 84,408.50. Respondent No. 2 Dena Bank had issued a bank guarantee to the plaintiff. However, in this appeal, no relief has been claimed against respondent No.2 Dena Bank. 4. Respondent No. I-plaintiff also pleaded that out of the thirty six dealers in Madhya Pradesh affected by the upward price revision, all except four, including the appellant, have accepted the liability due to price revision whereas the appellant refused to pay the difference in price. 5. The appellant-defendant No.1 denied the liability and submitted that it was appointed dealer by the plaintiff subject to terms set out in the letter of appointment. 5. The appellant-defendant No.1 denied the liability and submitted that it was appointed dealer by the plaintiff subject to terms set out in the letter of appointment. The Government of India was not a party to this concluded contract and the alleged upward revision of price by the Government of India in no way binds the appellant. It was the specific case of the appellant that upward revision of price by the Government of India would not operate retrospectively, and that it shall not affect the inter se relationship between the appellant and the respondent no.1, so far as their concluded contract was concerned. It was also averred by the appellant that revision of prices would operate as an embargo on the fertilizer company restricting sale of fertilizer by it without exceeding the price stipulated and notified by the Government of India. There was, however, no bar on the fertilizer company to sell the product at a price lower than the one fixed by the Government. 6. Appellant-defendant No. 1 also submitted before the trial Court that fertilizer company accepted the payment of the goods supplied to the appellant in full and final settlement of the claim. Hence, they are estopped from claiming the difference on the basis of enhanced prices. 7. The learned trial Court held that a per clauses 6 and 9 of the dealership agreement, appellant was bound to accept the price as fixed under the Control Order. Interpreting, or rather misinterpreting the terms of the agreement, the trial Court passed decree for the amount as mentioned above. 8. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the appellant preferred first appeal before this Court. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent-company had delivered the commodities to other dealers also and had claimed enhanced price for the same under the said clause and in the same matter some agents had come before this Court in SA No. 248/85. (Madras Fertilizer Ltd. v. Chawla Enterprises). In this second appeal, learned Single Judge of this Court held that in view of the above agreement, general provisions of the Sale of Goods Act would not apply and consequently the appeal filed by the company, i.e., the respondent No.1 in the present case, was allowed. Subsequently, in FA No. 115/89 (Agarwal Trading Co. In this second appeal, learned Single Judge of this Court held that in view of the above agreement, general provisions of the Sale of Goods Act would not apply and consequently the appeal filed by the company, i.e., the respondent No.1 in the present case, was allowed. Subsequently, in FA No. 115/89 (Agarwal Trading Co. v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd.) also, similar question was involved in which the present respondent No. 1 was the party. Relying on the judgment in Second Appeal No. 248/85 (Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. Chawla Enterprises), the appeal was dismissed. Learned Single Judge observed that as the decisions in the above referred two appeals were also in respect of the increase in price by the same notification dated 8.6.1980, therefore, it is not possible to take a different view; and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. 9. We have heard Shri N.S. Kale learned Senior Advocate with Shri Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant at length. Shri Neeraj Vegad, learned counsel appeared for respondent No. 1 on the date of hearing, but pleaded no instructions. We have carefully perused the record of lower Court and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. The main plank of the argument of Shri Kale was that mere fixation of the maximum price by notification under Clause 3 of the Fertilizer Control Order does not by itself amount to revision of the price by the fertilizer company. It was submitted that as there was no revision of the price by the respondent Madras Fertilizers Ltd. in exercise of the right reserved by it, by clause 6 of the agreement, pre-revised price was payable by the appellant. 11. The main question in appeal before this Court is as to whether under the terms of the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the price fixed by the notification dated 8.6.1980 without informing the dealer the revised price? 12. It is noticed that vide letter dated 5.6.1976 Ex. P-2 respondent No.1 was appointed as dealer of Vijay Fertilizers at Raipur on terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. 12. It is noticed that vide letter dated 5.6.1976 Ex. P-2 respondent No.1 was appointed as dealer of Vijay Fertilizers at Raipur on terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. Clause 6 of the agreement deals with the right to fix and revision of prices, which reads : Clause 6 MFL shall have the unilateral right to fix and revise prices which you shall pay for VIJAY products purchased by you and the maximum consumer prices at which these products shall be sold by you. Taxes duties and levies enforced by Central or State Government or local bodies shall be payable over and above the notified product prices effective from the date such taxes, duties or levies are enforced. Clause 9 of the agreement is also material and the same is being reproduced below: "Clause 9: Prices prevailing at the time of delivery will be applicable, any difference in price between the price prevailing as on the date of payment and on the date of delivery shall be adjusted through credit/debit note." 13. It would also be useful to reproduce notification of Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, published in Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary Part-II, Dated 8.6.1980, marked by trial Court as Ex. P-9 which reads: "MINISTRY OF AGRIULTURE Deptt. of Agri. & Cooperation NOTIFICATION Delhi, the 8th June, 1980 G.S.R. 304(E) : In pursuance of clause 3 of the Ferti1izer (Control) Order, 1957 and in pursuance' of the notification of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Agriculture) No. G.S.R. 218 (E), dated, the )th March, 1979, the Central Government hereby fixes, with immediate effect, the price specified in column (2) of the schedule annexed hereto as the maximum price per tonne at which the fertilizer specified in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the said schedule shall be sold to tea, coffee, rubber plantations or to the cultivators. SCHEDULE Name of Ferti1iser Maximum price per tonne (in Rupees) 1 2 1. Urea (46% N) 2000 2. DAP (18-46-0) 3050 3. NPK 17-17-17 2200 4. Nitro Phosphate with Potash 15-15-15 1800 5. NPK 19-19-19 2500 6. Amonium Phosphate Sulphate 20-20-0 2200 7. Nitro Phosphate 20-20-0 2050 8. Ammonium Phosphate Sulphate 16-20-0 1950 9. Urea Ammonium Phosphate 24-24-0 2600 10. Urea Ammonium Phosphate 28-28-0 3050 11. NPK 14-28-14 2600 12. NPK 10-26-26 2500 13. DAP (18-46-0) 3050 3. NPK 17-17-17 2200 4. Nitro Phosphate with Potash 15-15-15 1800 5. NPK 19-19-19 2500 6. Amonium Phosphate Sulphate 20-20-0 2200 7. Nitro Phosphate 20-20-0 2050 8. Ammonium Phosphate Sulphate 16-20-0 1950 9. Urea Ammonium Phosphate 24-24-0 2600 10. Urea Ammonium Phosphate 28-28-0 3050 11. NPK 14-28-14 2600 12. NPK 10-26-26 2500 13. NPK 14-35-14 2900 14. NPK 12-32-16 2750 15. Super Phosphate Tripple (Granualar) 2200 16. Super Phosphate Tripple (Powder) 2050 17. MOP (60% K20) 1100 18. SOP (50% K20) 1800 Explanation -- The maximum price specified above shall be exclusive of the Central Sales Tax, Local Sales Tax or other local taxes wherever' levied, whether at the retail sale point or at intermediate stage. Note -- When sale of any fertilizer is made in quantities nor exceeding 5 kilograms at a time, the dealer may charge the following cost in addition to the proportionate maximum price specified above: (a) For 1-2 Kg. packing 12 paise per packing; and, (b) For 3-5 Kg. packing 15 paise per packing. [No. 10-11/80-STU] AJ.S. SODID, Joint Secy." The above notification would be referred to as notification hereafter for brevity. It is also admitted position that consequent upon the revision of fertilizer prices by the Government of India the respondent No.1-Company informed the plaintiff regarding the revised price of Vijay products vide letter dated 23.6.1980 Ex. P-16. By this letter the revision in fertilizers prices was made effective from 8th June 1980. 14. Perusal of clauses 6 and 9 as above of the agreement reveals that the fertilizer company had unilateral right to fix and revise prices which shall be paid by the dealer and the maximum consumer price at which products shall be sold by the dealer. It was also stipulated that taxes, duties, or levies enforced by the Central or State Government or local bodies shall be payable over and above the notified product prices. Of course, the company had a power to unilaterally revise the prices but it is not the case of the plaintiff that prices were revised by them prior to their communication Ex. P-16 dated 23.6.1980. It may be noticed that clause 6 of the agreement does not warrant an inference that the terms of such contract would be either flexible or subservient to the ultimate dictates of the Government of India in the matter of rates. 15. Perusal of notification-Ex. P-16 dated 23.6.1980. It may be noticed that clause 6 of the agreement does not warrant an inference that the terms of such contract would be either flexible or subservient to the ultimate dictates of the Government of India in the matter of rates. 15. Perusal of notification-Ex. P-9 reveals that maximum price per ton for specified fertilizer was fixed for sale thereof to tea, coffee and rubber plantations and other cultivators. It was therefore, contended that revision of price operated as prohibition for the sale of fertilizer on a price exceeding the price notified to the tea, coffee and rubber plantations and other cultivators. However, the said notification did not create any bar for the company to sell the product to the dealer and at a price lower than the one fixed by the Government. It was contended that the notification of Government was issued fixing the maximum price for selling fertilizers to tea, coffee and rabber plantations and to the cultivators and not to the dealers by the company. The company was at liberty to sell the goods below the maximum price fixed by the Government to its dealers or to anyone else. 16. It may be noticed that the case of the plaintiff was that maximum price fixed under clause 3 of the Control Order was notified to all the persons concerned but it does not appear that it was notified prior to the letter dated 23.6.1980. It is clear that under the Dealership agreement, the power of unilateral revision of the prices could not be exercised retrospectively and could not be enforced for a period prior to 23.6.1980, when the fertilizers purchased by dealer were already sold to the consumers. 17. It would, therefore, be clear that though by Clause 6 of the agreement, the plaintiff-respondent had a right to unilaterally fix and revise price for Vijay Products purchased by the appellant. However, the said Clause does not admit of any interpretation indicating that the fixation or notification of the price by the Government would by itself amount to fixation and revision of price by the respondent M.F.L. Moreover, the price as communicated and notified by the respondent M.F.L. by its letter dated 23.6.1980 would not be retrospectively operative from an earlier date. Further, Clause 9 of agreement (Ex. P-6) clearly indicated that the price prevailing at the time of delivery will be applicable. Further, Clause 9 of agreement (Ex. P-6) clearly indicated that the price prevailing at the time of delivery will be applicable. In the instant case, the price of the fertilizer delivered to the appellant, prior to 23.6.1980 would remain uneffected by the Notification. Moreover, as noticed earlier the revision of price as above, by the said Notification was applicable for the sale of fertilizer to the Tea, Coffee and Rubber plantations and other cultivators. Therefore, revision of price by Notification was neither the revision of price by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1-M.F.L. nor was it applicable to the sale of fertilizer by it to the appellant-dealer. 18. The learned Single Judge appears to have taken the view that the earlier decision in F.A. No, 115/89 (Agarwal Trading Co. v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd.) and in Second Appeal No. 248/85 (Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. Chawla Enterprises) related to the same Notification dated 8.6.1980 which is under consideration in this appeal, therefore, it is not possible to take a different view from that which was taken in the said decisions. 19. However, it is noticed that words of the agreement-Ex. P-6 are plain and unambiguous. Court is, therefore, bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the fact that they were interpreted differently in some other judgment. Previous judgment regarding the meaning of a clause in an agreement can at best have pursuasive force. One of the essential features of. the doctrine of precedent is that it applies to pronouncement of law only. An interpretation of a particular clause of an agreement cannot be said to be pronouncement or law. An earlier judgment cannot change the plain meaning of the terms of an agreement. Merely because the other dealers operating for the plaintiff chose to pay the prices fixed by the Govt. w.e.f. the date of the upward revisions, it would not create an obligation on the part of appellant to pay the revised prices in the absence of a communication to that effect from respondent No. 1 to the appellant. Thus, the prices fixed by the Govt. of India could not have been binding on the appellant. 20. On the basis of the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge did not put proper interpretation to term 6 of the agreement. Thus, the prices fixed by the Govt. of India could not have been binding on the appellant. 20. On the basis of the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge did not put proper interpretation to term 6 of the agreement. Though it speaks of unilaterial fixation of price by the respondent, it does not refer to any maximum price. In the absence of any revision of price by the respondent-fertilizer company, the appellant dealer was not bound to pay the maximum price fixed by notification of the Government because there was no stipulation in that regard in the dealership agreement. Moreover, as already noticed notification of Central Government referred to above, fixed the maximum prices of fertilizers which could be sold to tea, coffee and rubber plantation and cultivators etc. The notification does not apply to the dealership agreement or to the price which could be recovered from the dealer. 21. In view of above, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by learned 'Single Judge in F.A. No. 117/85 is set aside and the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby dismissed. The respondent No. 1/company shall bear its own costs and also that of the appellant throughout.