R S NAWAL KISHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I will deal with the precise issues a little later but two principal questions arise in this suit-

(2.) The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 25,876.75 paise comprising the principal amount of Rs. 10,393.75 paise and Rs. 15,483.00 on account of interest at the rate of 7% per cent per annum on the principal amount. The plaintiff also prayed for future interest up to the date of payment.

(3.) Broadly, the case of the plaintiff is that before the partition of the country on August 15, 1947, the plaintiff was carrying on business in West Pakistan and used to supply mustard-oil to North Western Railway. He was, for the purpose, an approved contractor of the said Railway and had, under an agreement, deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 by way of a standing security for due performance of contracts awarded to him for the supply of mustard-oil from time to time. This amount was put in a fixed deposit with the Central Bank of India limited at Lahore and the fixed deposit receipt was specifically pledged in favour of Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer (hereafter referred to as F.A. & C. A. O.), North Western Railway and was handed over by the plaintiff to the said F.A. & C.A.O. The fixed deposit receipt used to be renewed at maturity and it appears that it was at least once renewed for the principal amount of Rs. 10,000.00 plus interst earned thereon. The procedure adopted regarding the supply of goods was that orders were placed with the plaintiff from time to time for the supply of mustard-oil, 90 percent of the price of goods supplied used to be paid to the plaintiff against railway receipts and/or -hand receipts and the remaining 10 per cent on the completion of each contact for the supply of goods. It is alleged by the plaintiff that at the time of his migration from the territory now comprised in Pakistan to India the second instalment of 10 per cent "on several supply contracts was yet due and payable to the plaintiff, although he had fully completed those contracts". (Paragraph 12 of the plaint).