SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(SC) 78

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Himachal Pradesh : AIR 1962 Him Pra 43)
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Amar Chand Butail (In both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others (In both the Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 563 and 564 of 1963.
11th March, 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. T. A. Ramachandran and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant (In both of the Appeals); Mr. S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General of India, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (in both the Appeals).

Advocates:
B.R.G.K.Achar, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, R.Ganapathy Iyer, Ravindra Narayan, S.V.Gupta, T.A.Ramachandran

Headnote:COURT ALLOWING PRIVILEGE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND IT IS UPHELD – FUTURE INTEREST – RATE OF INTEREST—PRIOR TO DATE OF FILING OF SUIT AND FUTURE

       -the matter cannot be agitated again in trial of the suit, and the principles of res judicata applies

       -it is in the discretion of the Court and is not governed by the agreement of the parties and should not be refused except for sufficient reasons

       -interest prior to the date of the suit where awarded at a certain rate, is no ground for awarding future interest at the same rate

       

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the appellant Amar Chand Butail against the three respondents, the Union of India. Himachal Pradesh Administration and Jishan Lal Kuthiala to recover Rs. 1,44,522-6-9 with future interest at 9% per annum. According to the appellant, he was a contractor who was entrusted with the work of supplying food grains and other commodities to the labourers employed by the Jubbal State for the purpose of exploiting the forests. He was also assigned the work of supplying food grains and other commodities to the Jubbal State under its grains procurement scheme; in order to carry out his assignment, be maintained a storage godown at Sanjauli. It appears that on April 1, 1948, the Jubbal State ceased to exploit the forests departmentally and assigned that work to a contractor Jodha Mall Khuthiala. On that date food-grains worth about Rs. 94,198-8-3 were with the appellant and they were meant to be supplied to the labourers employed by the Jubbal State. In pursuance of an order issued by the Jubbal Durbar, the appellant transferred all these goods to the Conservator of Forests in the State and in turn, the latter delivered them to the aforesaid Jodha Mall Khuthiala. Khutiala thereupon deposited Rs. 70,000/- to the credit of Jubbal State and drew a cheque for the balance of Rs. 24,000/- and odd in favour of the Chief Executive Officer, Jubbal. The payee endorsed the cheque in favour of the Agent, Imperial Bank of India. Simla and the proceeds of the cheque were duly credited to the account of Raja Rana Sir Bhagat Chand of Jubbal. The plaint further avers that the appellant owed a sum of Rs. 24,000/- and odd to one Karori Mall Khutiala and under the orders of the State, the said amount out of the total amount of Rs. 94,000/- and odd due to the appellant was set off towards the sum due by the appellant to the said Karori Mall. Some minor adjustments were also ordered to be made in respect of the amount due to the appellant and ultimately Rs. 71,818-15-0 was found to be due to him from the Jubbal State out of the total amount of Rs. 94,198-8-3. This amount thus represent the dues payable by the State to the appellant in respect of supply of goods by him to the labourers employed by the State and the balance of the goods given to the contractor under the orders of the State.

2. The next item of the appellant s claim was in regard to the grains supplied by the appellant under the grains procurement scheme of the State. The appellant set out the details of this claim and averred that under this heading, the amount due to him consisted of two items Rs. 37,669-3-6 and Rs. 1,000-12-0. The bills made by the appellant in that behalf were duly verified by the Jabbal Durbar and Durbar ordered respondent No. 3 Jishan Lal Khutiala to pay the said amount to the appellant. Jishan Lal Khutiala owed to the State an amount larger than the aforesaid amount and he undertook to make the payments to the appellant as directed by the State. In consequence, the appellant passed a receipt in favour of respondent No. 3 and it was handed over to the Conservator of Forests for the adjustment of the liability of respondent No. 3 to the State. About this time, the State had acceded to the Union of India and respondent No. 2 State had been formed. Respondent No. 2 then proceeded to restrain respondent No. 3 from making any payment to the appellant and directed him to deposit the sum due from him to the State in the Government Treasury. Accordingly respondent No. 3 deposited in the Government Treasury more than Rs. 1,15,000/- which he owed to the Jubbal State. The appellant moved Respondent No. 2 to honour the arrangement arrived at between him, the Jubbal State and respondent No. 3. Since his attempts failed, he had to file the present suit against the three respondents.

3. Respondent No. 3 admitted that he had been directed by the Jubbal Durbar to pay a sum of Rs. 1,08,669-15-3 to appellant, and tha





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top