NAV RATTANMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
April 24,1961
NAV RATTANMAL
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PURSHOTTAM GOVINDJI HALAI VS. B M DESAI ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY [REFERRED]COLLECTOR OF MALABAR VS. ERIMMAL EBRAHIM HAJEE [REFERRED]
MANNA LAL VS. COLLECTOR OF JHALAWAR [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
CENTERAL BANK OF INDIA VS. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA PASHUDHAN AVAM KUKUT VIKAS NIGAM [LAWS(MPH)-2005-10-13] [REFERRED TO]K R SARASWATHI VS. V VADIVELU CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1966-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUREKHA VS. THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1979-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
SAJANBIR SINGH ANAND AND ORS VS. RAMINDER KAUR ANAND AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
MURLI SINGH VS. STATE BANK DHOLPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
State of M.P. VS. Babulal [LAWS(MPH)-1991-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
VIKLAD COAL MERCHANT PATIALA DHARAM SINGH YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1983-10-38] [RELIED ON]
CHAMALI SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2024-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI PEASANTS CO OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR [LAWS(DLH)-1970-9-14] [REFERRED 6.]
RAM GOPAL GUPTA VS. ASSISTANT HOUSING COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-1967-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
SUREKHA VS. THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1979-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. K.P.BHASKARAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. RAYALASEEMA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION CHAGALARRI KURNOL DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-1970-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD LITERATURE CO PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1967-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHARMA MONTESSORI SCHOOL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-326] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2001-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1967-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU REDDIAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1962-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
HEMALNATH VS. B. KASTHURI [LAWS(MAD)-1975-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GEN) VS. TAHKKER SHIPPING PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-271] [REFERRED]
A. MUTHUKUMARASWAMY VS. A. DEVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-1976-4-58] [REFERRED]
STATE OF KERALA VS. V R KALLIYANIKUTTY [LAWS(SC)-1999-4-128] [RELIED ON]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS. BEST GAS SERVICE AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY KICCHA RUDRAPUR NAINITAL [LAWS(ALL)-1981-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
THALAYODI RAGHAVAN VS. KOORANTAVITTA KELAPPAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
RUSHIBHAI JAGDISHBHAI PATHAK VS. BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF GOA VS. SHRI LAXIMAN SANGLE SON OF SHRI SONU SANGLE, MAJOR, MARRIED, BUSINESS, INDIA NATIONAL, R/O. MONTE VILLA, SANGOLDA, BARDEZ - GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-3-290] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM TEATHER INDUSTRY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1999-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARMAL VS. SUKHPAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
SUCHA SINGH VS. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AFZALGARH COLONIZATION SCHEME BIJNOR [LAWS(ALL)-1962-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
ASHAPURA MINERAL COMPANY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1992-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHIPPING CORPN OF INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2004-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
V M SALGAOCAR VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MORMUGAO [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHAND RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-9-19] [REFERRED]
M/S. DELTON ELECTRICALS VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-207] [REFERRED TO]
S MANIMUDI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1992-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICERS THIRUPATTUR DIVISION VS. M RAFEEQUE AHMED [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-239] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA VS. KUMARAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1991-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
MUMBAI KEROSENE DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
MAGANBHAI BALUBHAI VS. LILAVATIBEN NAGINBHAI D/O BALUBHAI BHANABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-309] [REFERRED TO]
TANGAIL TEXTILES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1964-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
BALI KARAN LAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI [LAWS(ALL)-1984-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL ALI VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
FATEHSINH MADHUSINH RATHOD VS. COMMI OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-1975-2-5] [REFERRED]
M.G. RAVEENDRAN NAIR VS. THE STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-213] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA NIGAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
REDSTONE REALTORS & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-160] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH K. NARANG VS. JAMNADAS MORARJE SECS.LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2021-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NATH VS. H.P. STATE FOREST CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
SAJANBIR SINGH ANAND AND ORS. VS. RAMINDER KAUR ANAND AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN RICE AND GENERAL MILLS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, and is directed against the judgment of that Court dated December 16, 1954 by which the decree in favour of the respondent- Union of India -was affirmed.
(2.)Seth Lal Chand Kothari-the original first appellant in the appeal before us (he died pending this appeal and his heirs have been brought on record as his legal representatives-appellants 1 to 6) was appointed by the Commissioner Ajmer-Merwara as Government Treasurer, Ajmer-Merwara, by an order dated February 20, 1940, the treasuries to be under his charge being two-that at Ajmer and a sub-treasury at Beawar. Before accepting office he had, under the rules, to deposit Government promissory notes to the extent Rs. 60,000 and also execute a Security Bond for a like amount with two sureties to cover any loss to the Government in these treasuries. He accordingly made the deposit, and a security bond was executed by him on February 27, 1940 with Seth Phool Chand -who is now the 7th appellant in the appeal and one Seth Kanwarlal Ranka who died even before the suit and was not impleaded in it. Thereupon Lal Chand Kothari was directed to take charge of the office as Treasurer and he did so on March 6, 1940.
(3.)We are not concerned with the treasury at Ajmer, but only with that at Beawar. Lal Chand, at the time of his taking charge, executed a receipt headed "charge-report" and in its is recited that he had taken over from the previous incumbent (M. L. Patni) the amount of cash which tallied with what had to be in the treasury according to the books. Nothing happened between 1940 and 1948 and the business at the treasury appeared to be proceeding regularly and according to the rules. It may be mentioned that there were the usual periodical checks and audits by Government officials but no impropriety was discovered during these checks or audits. On March 31, 1948, the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Ajmer, made a check of the treasury at Beawar. The treasury staff who ought to have been there were however absent in spite of their having had prior intimation of his arrival and thereupon he directed the treasury to be scaled. There were two cash chests at this sub-treasury- one secured with a single lock, the key of which was with the staff of the Treasurer and the other with double-locks, the keys of which were held, one by the employee of the treasurer and the other by the Government Treasury Officer-the Tahsildar. A verification of the balance in the two chests disclosed that a sum of 7 annas, 9 pies was missing from the single-lock chest and Rs. 84,215/- from the chest with the double-lock. The Government thereupon took proceedings to realise the missing amount from the security of Rs. 60,000 which had been under deposit. The Government securities were sold and they realized about rupees 58 thousands and odd leaving a sum of Rs. 25,786-13-9 still due. The Union of Indian thereupon filed a suit-Civil Suit 125 of1951 before the Sub-Judge First class Beawar on the security bond dated February 27, 1940 against Lal Chand Kothari and Seth Phool Chand for recovery of this sum. Several defences were raised by the defendants but they were all rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge who granted the respondents a decree in terms prayed for in the suit. The defendants filed an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner who dismissed sit, but having regard to the fact that some of the defences turned on the interpretation of the security should dated February 27, 1940, granted a certificate under Art.133(1) of the Constitution and that is how the appeal is now before us.
(2.)Seth Lal Chand Kothari-the original first appellant in the appeal before us (he died pending this appeal and his heirs have been brought on record as his legal representatives-appellants 1 to 6) was appointed by the Commissioner Ajmer-Merwara as Government Treasurer, Ajmer-Merwara, by an order dated February 20, 1940, the treasuries to be under his charge being two-that at Ajmer and a sub-treasury at Beawar. Before accepting office he had, under the rules, to deposit Government promissory notes to the extent Rs. 60,000 and also execute a Security Bond for a like amount with two sureties to cover any loss to the Government in these treasuries. He accordingly made the deposit, and a security bond was executed by him on February 27, 1940 with Seth Phool Chand -who is now the 7th appellant in the appeal and one Seth Kanwarlal Ranka who died even before the suit and was not impleaded in it. Thereupon Lal Chand Kothari was directed to take charge of the office as Treasurer and he did so on March 6, 1940.
(3.)We are not concerned with the treasury at Ajmer, but only with that at Beawar. Lal Chand, at the time of his taking charge, executed a receipt headed "charge-report" and in its is recited that he had taken over from the previous incumbent (M. L. Patni) the amount of cash which tallied with what had to be in the treasury according to the books. Nothing happened between 1940 and 1948 and the business at the treasury appeared to be proceeding regularly and according to the rules. It may be mentioned that there were the usual periodical checks and audits by Government officials but no impropriety was discovered during these checks or audits. On March 31, 1948, the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Ajmer, made a check of the treasury at Beawar. The treasury staff who ought to have been there were however absent in spite of their having had prior intimation of his arrival and thereupon he directed the treasury to be scaled. There were two cash chests at this sub-treasury- one secured with a single lock, the key of which was with the staff of the Treasurer and the other with double-locks, the keys of which were held, one by the employee of the treasurer and the other by the Government Treasury Officer-the Tahsildar. A verification of the balance in the two chests disclosed that a sum of 7 annas, 9 pies was missing from the single-lock chest and Rs. 84,215/- from the chest with the double-lock. The Government thereupon took proceedings to realise the missing amount from the security of Rs. 60,000 which had been under deposit. The Government securities were sold and they realized about rupees 58 thousands and odd leaving a sum of Rs. 25,786-13-9 still due. The Union of Indian thereupon filed a suit-Civil Suit 125 of1951 before the Sub-Judge First class Beawar on the security bond dated February 27, 1940 against Lal Chand Kothari and Seth Phool Chand for recovery of this sum. Several defences were raised by the defendants but they were all rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge who granted the respondents a decree in terms prayed for in the suit. The defendants filed an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner who dismissed sit, but having regard to the fact that some of the defences turned on the interpretation of the security should dated February 27, 1940, granted a certificate under Art.133(1) of the Constitution and that is how the appeal is now before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.