BHAGWATI PRASAD PAWAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has come up for consideration before the Division Bench in pursuance of the order dated 22.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that there is some amount of conflict between the view taken by a learned Single Judge in a case reported in AIR 1973 Gauhati 111 (The Union of India Vs. M/s Rameshwarlal Bhagchand) and the view taken in an72 unreported judgment of this Court, namely, Second Appeal No. 77 of 1982 decided on 11.3.91 (M/s Assam Bengal Cereals Ltd. Vs. Union of India). The learned Single Judge observed that the matter requires a decision by a Division Bench. Hence, this matter before us.

(2.) The dispute relates to settlement of claim between the parties, namely, the appellant and the railways. It appears, two consignments were booked in favour of the appellant. One consignment consisted of 767 bags of Iodised salt and the other consignment consisted of 744 bags. On non-delivery of the consignments, the appellant seems to have claimed a sum of Rs. 53,284/- and Rs. 51.686/ - each respectively for the two consignments. The Railway authorities remitted two cheques of Rs. 9,111/- and Rs. 9,032/- respectively for two claims in full and final settlement of the claims. It further transpires that the cheques were sent with a letter containing the following conditions :

(3.) Before entering into the merits of the matter, we may like to observe that in the unreported decision in Second Appeal No. 77/82 (Messrs. Assam Bengal Cereals Limited Vs. Union of India), the learned Single Judge distinguished the judgment in the case of Bhagchand (supra) on facts on the ground that in the unreported judgment the cheque was encashed with protest, whereas there was no such protest in the other case. The learned Single Judge while referring the matter expressed the opinion that the law laid down in the case of Bhagchand (supra) seems to be correct law. It also seems to be the view of the learned Single Judge that despite the distinction drawn, on the facts involved in the case of M/s. Assam Bengal Cereals Limited, the law as laid down in the case of Bhagchand would be applicable. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider the facts of two cases as well as some other cases on the point as referred to by the parties.