HINDUPUR CO OPERATIVE STORES LTD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HINDUPUR CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD., BY ITS SECRETARY
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit (O.S. No. 38 of 1955,
Sub-Court, Anantapur) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,207-7-0 with future
interest. The plaintiff is the Hindupur Co-operative Stores, represented by its
Secretary. It placed an order with the first defendant for 130 bags of new ' Akkullu'
rice and 90 bags of old ' kusuma ', out of which the first defendant despatched 120
bags of old 'kusuma' on 15th January, 1954. The Second consignment of 125
bags of new ' akkullu ' rice was despatched by the first defendant on 28th January,
1954 from Narasapur to East Godavari, where the plaintiff carries his business.
The plaintiff honoured the hundi and paid a sum of Rs.5,327 on 1st February, 1954.
(2.) When the plaintiff applied for the delivery of the goods he was told by the
railway authorities that the goods had been seized by the Tahsildar, Hindupur, in
pursuance of certain orders passed by the second defendant prohibiting transport
of foodgrains in belt areas. On 18th February, 1955, the plaintiff issued a notice
to the second defendant under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding
liable for the suit amount. It was alleged in that notice that the promulgation
of the order came into effect only subsequent to the transport of the goods from
Narasapur, and while the goods were in transit, and the Government order had no
application to the case. On the above averments the plaintiff claimed for the suit
amount with interest at 12 per cent, per annum by way of damages from 1st February, 1954,
the date on which the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,327. The suit claim consisted of:
(i) An amount paid as per the invoice in a sum of (ii) Interest from 1-2-1954 to 17-6-1955 at 12% per annum amounting to (iii) the Bank's commission in sum of
Total Rs. As. Ps. 5,315-10-0
880- 7-0 11- 6 - 0 6,207-7-0
(3.) The first defendant contended that he was a commission agent and was,
therefore, in no way liable to the plaintiff. The second defendant (State of Andhra)
contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of section 16(1) of the Essential
Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act and that the seizure of the rice in pursuance of
the G.O. was legal and, therefore, there was no cause of action,
The learned Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, framed the following issues :
(i) Whether the suit against the second defendant (Government) is not maintainable in view
of section 16 (1) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 ?
(ii) Whether there is a cause of action against the second defendant ?
(iii) Whether the first defendant is liable for the damages, if any ?
(iv) To what relief ?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.