CHETANDAS GULABCHAND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who are a registered firm having their principal place of business at Purnea with branches at various places within the district of Purnea. The suit was instituted for realisation of a sum of Rs. 15,895/-, which represented the value of 18 bales of cloth, together with interest thereon and loss of profit, in the following circumstances.

(2.) The plaintiffs are dealers in textile goods and also acted as importers of cloth for the sadar sub-division of the district of Purnea and held a licence from the Government of Bihar for that purpose. The plaintiffs accordingly ordered purchase of cloth in different parts of the country. In the year 1945, there was restriction on the carriage of goods to Purnea by railway through Karha Gola and, accordingly, the plaintiffs arranged to get their consignment of cloth through Nirmali railway station in the district of Bhagalpur. The arrangement was that delivery of the consignment would be taken at Ninnali and thereafter it would be taken to Purnea by boat and bullock carts. 18 bales of cloth were received accordingly at the Nirmali railway station and the plaintiffs' men went to take delivery of the goods on production of the railway receipts, but, under orders from the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa, the railway receipts were seized by some local officers of the Government, who took delivery of the consignment. The plaintiffs came to learn later on that the cloth was sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in the Government Sub-Treasury at Supaul. All attempts on the part of the plaintiffs to recover their property failed in spite of the recommendation of the District Magistrate of Purnea for release of the cloth. When, however, the plaintiffs learnt that all the 18 bales had been sold away, they approached the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa for payment of compensation, at the rate of ex-mill price plus 10 per cent, but the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa refused to pay the compensation and, accordingly, notice had to be served on the Government under Section 80 of the Civil "Procedure Code and the present suit had to be instituted basing the cause of action on the refusal of the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa to accede to the plaintiffs' claim, which took place on 15th July, 1946.

(3.) The defendant, who is the State of Bihar, resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds including limitation and inadequacy of the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also pleaded that Section 16 (1) of the Defence of India Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. It was also stated that as the entire procedure of requisition and acquisition under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules was done in good faith for maintenance of supplies essential to the life of the community and in conformity with the law then existing, the suit was not maintainable also under Section 17, Sub-section (1) of the Defence of India Act.