THE ASSOCIATED OIL MILLS LTD. Vs. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF NORTH ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of North Arcot, Vellore, acting as an arbitrator under Section 19(1)(6) of the Defence of India Act. C.M.A. No. 667 of 1945 is by the Associated Oil Mills, Ltd., Katpadi, hereinafter referred to as the claimant and C.M.A. No. 732 of 1945 is by the Government of the Province of Madras. It is convenient to deal with the latter appeal first.

(2.) THE only point taken in this appeal on behalf of the Government is that in his award concerning the loss of income to the claimant the District Judge should have confined it to the period from 1st June, 1942 to nth September, 1942, and should not have given any amount for loss of income for the period between 11th September, 1942 and 15th October, 1942. About 4 acres and 15 cents of land belonging to the claimant in the village of Ammanur in Arkonam taluk was requisitioned by the Government for military purposes with some superstructures standing thereon. The order requisitioning those properties was passed on the 20th May, 1942 ; but possession was actually taken three days later. The superstructures included a mill which the claimant had erected for crushing groundnuts and other oil seeds. It is common ground that the claimant would have commenced the working of the mill and would have gone on with the manufacture of oils had it not been for the requisitioning of the properties by the Government. After it received the order of requisition the claimant had to remove the mill from there and erect it at Katpadi. On behalf of the claimant it was at first claimed that it should be awarded compensation by way of loss of income from the 23rd May 1942 to 1st November, 1942. At the time, however, when evidence was adduced before the arbitrator the claim was restricted to the period between the 1st June, 1942 and 24th October, 1942. There is no objection on the part of the Government to the 1st June, 1942, being regarded as the commencement of the period ; but it is contended by the Government that the claimant should not be awarded any compensation for loss of income after the nth September 1942 The District Judge awarded Rs. 63,259 -12 -0 under this head calculating as already stated for the period between 1st June, 1942 and 15th October, 1942 It would appear that the claimant applied to the proper authorities for permission to work the factory on the 6th October, 1942, and that permission was given on the 11th October, 1942. The District Judge allowed four days for the permit to reach the claimant and that is how he fixed the 15th October, 1942, as the date up to which compensation should be awarded. On behalf of the Government the learned Government Pleader argued that it is for the claimant to show that it could not have started the working of the factory at Katpadi at an earlier date. The evidence on this matter is meagre; but from the evidence of the claimant's director who was the only witness examined in the case it appears that soon after the requisition was received the claimant purchased another site at Katpadi on the 2nd June 1942 and that with the greatest expedition the witness constructed the buildings there and planted the machinery which he had removed from Arkonam, by the last week of October, when according to him he actually started pressing oil after getting a permit. There was no serious challenge of this statement which was made by the witness in his examination -in -chief. He was asked in cross -examination about the purchases made by his company on the 11th September, 1942 and again on the 14th September. He admitted the purchases, but stated that they were for small amounts. He added that the company carries an advance stock of 15 000 bags valued at Rs. 3,75,000. The Government called no evidence contra The mere fact that some quantity of groundnut was purchased on the 11th September and 14th September, does not indicate that the crushing of the groundnut was started on either of these dates. Assuming that it is for the claimant to establish that it could not have started the working of the mill at Katpadi earlier, the evidence given by the witness examined on behalf of the claimant, in our opinion, satisfactorily establishes that the company could not have started the working of the mill at Katpadi earlier than the date fixed by the learned District Judge. It is not denied that the mill could not be worked without a permit which was only issued on the 11th October, 1942. All that is suggested on behalf of the Government is that the claimant could have constructed the mill at Katpadi and obtained the permit earlier than that date but for reasons already stated not only has the Government not made this out, but the claimant has definitely established that it could not have started the working of the mill at Katpadi earlier than 15th October. That is the only point argued in the appeal filed by the Government. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

(3.) AS to the first point we do not see how interest can be awarded on an amount which is in the nature of damages. It was suggested that the Government had agreed to pay interest. The appellant's counsel took us through some of the letters which passed between the claimant's solicitor and the Government in an endeavour to establish that there was an agreement between the claimant and the Government as to the amount payable to the former by way of compensation for loss of income. We are satisfied that at no stage during the correspondence was there any such agreement. In his award dated 31st January, 1945, the Collector of North Arcot refers to the claims made before him on behalf of the Associated Trading Corporation, Limited and the Associated Oil Mills, Ltd., the latter being the claimant in this proceeding. Dealing with the claim made by the Associated Trading Corporation he stated that it was agreed between the Government and the Corporation that Rs. 3,394 -o -0 should be paid by the Government by way of compensation for requisitioning certain properties of the Corporation and in referring to this amount the Collector says that the Government was pleased to sanction payment of interest, at 6 per cent. per annum on the amount of compensation as finally agreed upon. In a separate paragraph he refers to the claim made by the Associated Oil Mills, Ltd. There he simply sets out the particulars of the amounts which the Government was prepared to pay to the claimant and expressly states that there being no agreement between the Associated Mills and the Government, there would be a reference to the arbitrator, viz., the District Judge of North Arcot. Moreover,. we are not concerned with the question whether there was any agreement between the Government and the claimant as to the period for which compensation should be awarded for loss of income, the point which we have to decide being merely whether the Government consented to pay interest. We have not been shown any document from which it can be said that the Government agreed to pay interest on such compensation as may be awarded to the claimant.