Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. C. MALLICK, J.
Bengal Agricultural and Industrial Corporation
Versus
Corporation of Calcutta
Suit No.2174 of 1953
Decided On : 01-09-1959
Suit for declaration of rights of the plaintiff under a contract with the defendant Corporation, injunction to prevent a breach thereof by the defendants, for damages and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs case is that by an Indenture dated 25-10-1951, the defendant Corporation granted a licence to the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff acquired the sole and absolute right to draw and remove sludge from the Pruss Sedimentation Tank at Bantalla including the lagoons and to utilise and convert the same into manure and sell it as a commercial product. For such purpose the plaintiff acquired the right under the agreement to occupy 20 bighas of land. The agreement was for 10 years commencing from 9-1-1949 with an option for further period. Ever since the plaintiff proceeded to work out the said licence, market the sludge and had acquired a well-established reputation and created a goodwill of considerable value. The defendant Corporation during the subsistence of this agreement wrongfully allowed the State of West Bengal to encroach on the plaintiffs rights and to remove sludge from the area leased out to the plaintiff, to construct railway lines around the lagoons all over the land leased out preventing the plaintiff access to the lagoons and sedimentation tanks and thereby preventing the plaintiff to draw and remove sludge from the lagoons. These are the wrongful acts alleged to have been committed by the defendant State in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant Corporation. Full knowledge of the agreement subsisting between the plaintiff and the Corporation has been imputed to the State. The defendants have failed and neglected though called upon to desist from these wrongful acts. Hence the suit has been instituted for declaration of rights of the plaintiff under the agreement, for injunction and for damages against both the defendants :
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant Corporation and the State of West Bengal for declaration of rights of the plaintiff under a contract with the defendant Corporation, injunction to prevent a breach thereof by the defendants, for damages and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs case is that by an Indenture dated 25-10-1951, the defendant Corporation granted a licence to the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff acquired the sole and absolute right to draw and remove sludge from the Pruss Sedimentation Tank at Bantalla including the lagoons and to utilise and convert the same into manure and sell it as a commercial product. For such purpose the plaintiff acquired the right under the agreement to occupy 20 bighas of land. The agreement was for 10 years commencing from 9-1-1949 with an option for further period. Ever since the plaintiff proceeded to work out the said licence, market the sludge and had acquired a well-established reputation and created a goodwill of considerable value. The defendant Corporation during the subsistence of this agreement wrongfully allowed the State of West Bengal to encroach on the plaintiffs rights and to remove sludge from the area leased out to the plaintiff, to construct railway lines around the lagoons all over the land leased out preventing the plaintiff access to the lagoons and sedimentation tanks and thereby preventing the plaintiff to draw and remove sludge from the lagoons. These are the wrongful acts alleged to have been committed by the defendant State in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant Corporation. Full knowledge of the agreement subsisting between the plaintiff and the Corporation has been imputed to the State. The defendants have failed and neglected though called upon to desist from these wrongful acts. Hence the suit has been instituted for declaration of rights of the plaintiff under the agreement, for injunction and for damages against both the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had acquired an exclusive title in the sludge to come out of the sedimentation tank for a term of 10 years whether the sludge is taken to the plaintiffs factory straight by the diversion pipe or whether it is discharged through the main pipe into the lagoon. The plaintiff however has been given no right on the sludge already accumulated in the lagoon prior to 9-1-1949. This being the plaintiffs right, has there been a breach or invasion on the plaintiffs right of property on the sludge pumped out of the tank into the lagoon after 9-1-1949? There is evidence that the Government removed sludge from the lagoon and that in large quantities. But there is no evidence that the Government has removed sludge pumped out into the lagoon after 9-1-1949. The plaintiff has proceeded on the footing that it has been granted a monopoly on all sludge not only on those to come out of the sedimentation tank but also on the entire sludge lying in the lagoon. The plaintiffs case is that the lagoon is a part of the sedimentation tank. I have held however that the plaintiff had no monopoly to draw and remove all sludge from the lagoon. Its right is limited to the sludge to be discharged in the lagoon after 9-1-1949. If that is the limited right of the plaintiff, then the evidence tendered to the effect that the Government had removed sludge from the lagoon would not amount to an invasion on the plaintiffs right unless it is proved further that the sludge removed had been discharged in the lagoon after 9-1-1949. The burden of proof of this breach is on the plaintiff. There is evidence that the plaintiffs men have never been prevented from taking sludge from the lagoon. It seems to me that no breach has been proved in this case nor has it been proved that there has been any invasion on the plaintiffs right to take away sludge from the lagoon nor any trespass on the plaintiffs sludge lying on the lagoon.
Issues: 1. (a) Is this a suit for land? 2. (a) Is the contract in suit liable to be registered? (b) If so, what is the effect of non-registration on this suit? 3. Did the Corporation of Calcutta grant exclusive right in favour of the plaintiff to draw sludge as alleged? 4. If so, has the Corporation committed breach of the terms of the said grant? 5. Has the plaintiff suffered any damage? If so, how much? 6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had acquired an exclusive title in the sludge to come out of the sedimentation tank for a term of 10 years whether the sludge is taken to the plaintiffs factory straight by the diversion pipe or whether it is discharged through the main pipe into the lagoon. The plaintiff however has been given no right on the sludge already accumulated in the lagoon prior to 9-1-1949. This being the plaintiffs right, has there been a breach or invasion on the plaintiffs right of property on the sludge pumped out of the tank into the lagoon after 9-1-1949? There is evidence that the Government removed sludge from the lagoon and that in large quantities. But there is no evidence that the Government has removed sludge pumped out into the lagoon after 9-1-1949. The plaintiff has proceeded on the footing that it has been granted a monopoly on all sludge not only on those to come out of the sedimentation tank but also on the entire sludge lying in the lagoon. The plaintiffs case is that the lagoon is a part of the sedimentation tank. I have held however that the plaintiff had no monopoly to draw and remove all sludge from the lagoon. Its right is limited to the sludge to be discharged in the lagoon after 9-1-1949. If that is the limited right of the plaintiff, then the evidence tendered to the effect that the Government had removed sludge from the lagoon would not amount to an invasion on the plaintiffs right unless it is proved further that the sludge removed had been discharged in the lagoon after 9-1-1949. The burden of proof of this breach is on the plaintiff. There is evidence that the plaintiffs men have never been prevented from taking sludge from the lagoon. It seems to me that no breach has been proved in this case nor has it been proved that there has been any invasion on the plaintiffs right to take away sludge from the lagoon nor any trespass on the plaintiffs sludge lying on the lagoon.
Final Decision: Suit dismissed.
2. The defendant Corporation in its written statement denied that the plaintiff acquired sole and absolute right to draw and remove sludge from the sedimentation tanks and/or the lagoons, that there was no agreement to extend the period of licence. It is pleaded that though 20 Bighas of land is mentioned in the agreement, the land has not been described or defined and that there is no schedule to the said Indenture. All allegations of conspiracy and wrongful conduct have been denied. It is pleaded that no exclusive license having been given to the plaintiff to draw and remove sludge from the sedimentation tanks and/or the lagoons, the defendant Corporation acted within its rights in allowing the defendant State to remove sludge from the lagoons. The defendant Corporation was within its right to allow the defendant State to construct railway lines along the lagoons and the plaintiff having no right over the lagoon, this construction of railway lines did not in any way affect the plaintiffs right under the agreement. It is denied that the plaintiff had any possessory title to the lagoons and that removal of sludge from the lagoons docs amount to trespass on the part of the defendant on which an action for damages would lie. In short the defence is that the plaintiff acquired no exclusive right under the agreement, no right to receive sludge from the lagoons, in fact, no right to the lagoons and that there has been no infringement of the agreement on the part of the defendant Corporation. It is pleaded that the plaintiff and not the defendant was guilty of breach of contract. It is submitted that the plaintiff had no cause of action to institute the suit and that the suit is mala fide, vexatious and speculative and should be dismissed with costs.
3. In the written statement of the defendant State, it is pleaded that the Indenture in suit purports to create rights in immovable property and is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of registration. Knowledge of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Corporation has been denied. It is denied that the plaintiff ha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
