S N DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1961-3-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
March 27,1961
S.N.DUTT
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DHIAN SINGH SOBHA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [EXPLAINED]STATE OF MADRAS VS. C P AGENCIES [EXPLAINED]
Cited Judgements :-
L HARISH CHANDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1967-1-13] [REFERRED]HARISH CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-1961-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN ALI MIRZA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1962-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAHHAMMAD JAFAR HAJI IBRAHIM [LAWS(ORI)-1970-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
BHARDIA BROTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-1971-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANKAR STORE [LAWS(ORI)-1973-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
DIPTI MITRA PROPRIETRESS VS. HIMANGSHU KRISHNA MITRA [LAWS(CAL)-1983-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
DOOM DOMA TEA COMPANY LIMITED CALCUTTA 16 VS. UNION OF INDIA OWNING THE NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY [LAWS(MAD)-1981-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT CHAND S MEHTA SOLE PROPRIETOR MADRAS HEAVY CHEMICALS MADRAS VS. UNION OF INDIA OWNING SOUTHERN RAILWAY [LAWS(MAD)-1988-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAL PRADAY KARMACHARI KALYAN SANGH VS. AYUKT NAGAR NIGAM JABLPUR [LAWS(MPH)-2005-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
NANNAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1963-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
SAHDUL MIAN JAN MOHAMMAD MIAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1966-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA SINGH VS. MIRZA JAMAL [LAWS(PAT)-1971-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
Ramjilal VS. Union of India [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NATWERLAL M BADIANI [LAWS(GJH)-2000-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MADRAS VS. EASTERN MATCH CO TIRUMANGALAM [LAWS(APH)-1963-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO PRASAD SANTHELIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1975-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD VS. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY [LAWS(PAT)-1977-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAWAT HARDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1981-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH NEMJI CHITARMAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1982-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT AND COMPANY HAZARIBAGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1986-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and another -Petitioner VS. Presiding Officer,Labour Court and another -Respondents [LAWS(UTN)-2003-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
Putli Bai VS. Municipal Corp. Gwalior [LAWS(MPH)-1962-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
Gyanajeet Moharana VS. Binodini Pattanaik [LAWS(ORI)-2008-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. KUTHARF TRADING CO. LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-1968-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. MANGILAL JANAKIPRASAD [LAWS(GAU)-1978-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
LAININGBA MANGI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
KHALIL AHMAD VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1973-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM DASS VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1984-3-17] [OVERRULED]
REKHA VS. VEERMATI [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
V ANJANEYA SETTY VS. M G BROTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1981-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
NASEEMA TEXTILES AZHIKODE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1970-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
P P ABUBACKER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1971-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF ORISSA VS. GOURI CHARAN KANUNGO AND [LAWS(ORI)-1965-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORE AGRAWAL VS. COMMISSIONER, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, RAIPUR [LAWS(CHH)-2015-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
COMMANDING OFFICER, AIRFORCE, GORAKHPUR AND ORS. VS. SUSHILA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD GUPTA VS. THE DOMINION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1970-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT BHADWA PARGANA & DISTT. JALAUN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. & 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-398] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 1; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-626] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR VS. DEVIDAS [LAWS(CHH)-2020-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Wanchoo, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these:The appellant, S. N. Dutt, is the sole proprietor of the business under that name and style at Krishnagore in the district of Nadia in 1944. On May, 17, 1944, S. N. Dutt and Co. obtained an order from the military authorities for the supply of 10,000 baskets of mangoes to be delivered at Sealdah Railway Station, every day from May 24, 1944, for ten days at the rate of 1,000 baskets per day. The military authorities made arrangements with the Bengal and Assam Railway for the supply of 30 covered wagons at Jiaganj Railway Station at the rate of three wagons per day commencing from May 22, 1944, for this purpose, and this was communicated to the appellant on May 19, 1944. On May 18. 1944, the Divisional Superintendent, Sealdah informed the Station Master at Jiaganj that contractor S. N. Dutt would book and load 30 wagons of mangoes at Jiaganj at the rate of three wagons per day from May 22, 1944, and directed him to accept the booking and allot wagons for the said purpose. The appellant thereupon placed indents with the Station Master Jiaganj for the supply of the said wagons and began to bring to the Jiaganj Railway Station baskets of mangoes from May 21, 1944. It appears however that wagons were not supplied regularly, with the result that whatever consignments reached Sealdah were spoilt and were rejected by the military authorities. On May 30, 1944, the military authorities informed the contractor that the contract had been cancelled on account of the unsatisfactory nature of the supplies. The result of this was that 5004 further baskets of mangoes could not be despatched, though they had been stacked at the Railway Station at Jiaganj. In consequence the mangoes were spoilt and had to be thrown away. The appellant claimed that he had sustained a heavy loss due to the misconduct, gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the Bengal and Assam Railway administration. Consequently he submitted a claim for damages for over Rs. 84.000/- to the Chief Commercial Manager and the General Manager of the Railway. Subsequently on November 4, 1944, he gave two notices under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Secretary to the Governor-General of India in Council representing the Bengal and Assam Railway and followed it up by instituting the suit on July 21, 1945, claiming over Rs. 84,000/- as damages.
(2.)This suit was resisted by the Governor-General in Council, now represented by the Union of India. Among other defences with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. it was contended on behalf of the Union of India (respondent) that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the suit as the two notices under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not valid and sufficient, but were defective.
(3.)When the matter came to trial before the Subordinate Judge, he held in favour of the appellant on the question whether there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration; but he dismissed the suit on the ground that the two notices under S. 80 were defective inasmuch as they had been issued by S. N. Dutt and Co. and not on behalf of the appellant. There was then an appeal by S. N. Dutt before the High Court. The High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the notices under S. 80 were defective and the suit was rightly dismissed. Further on the merits, the High Court did not agree with the Subordinate Judge that any misconduct or negligence had been proved which would entitle the appellant to any damages except in the matter of one small consignment. The appeal therefore failed. Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court which was refused. He then came to this Court by petition for special leave which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
(2.)This suit was resisted by the Governor-General in Council, now represented by the Union of India. Among other defences with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. it was contended on behalf of the Union of India (respondent) that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the suit as the two notices under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not valid and sufficient, but were defective.
(3.)When the matter came to trial before the Subordinate Judge, he held in favour of the appellant on the question whether there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration; but he dismissed the suit on the ground that the two notices under S. 80 were defective inasmuch as they had been issued by S. N. Dutt and Co. and not on behalf of the appellant. There was then an appeal by S. N. Dutt before the High Court. The High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the notices under S. 80 were defective and the suit was rightly dismissed. Further on the merits, the High Court did not agree with the Subordinate Judge that any misconduct or negligence had been proved which would entitle the appellant to any damages except in the matter of one small consignment. The appeal therefore failed. Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court which was refused. He then came to this Court by petition for special leave which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.