J H PATTINSON Vs. BINDHYA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of two actions brought by the plaintiff claiming royalty, cess and damages, Incidentally there was also a claim for interest prior to the institution of the suit as well as afterwards. These claims were based on a mining lease dated 17 March 1915. The defendants are the appellants. Defendant 1 is one J.H. Pattinson, defendant 2 is the New Sinidih Coal Co. Led., and defendant 3 is H.V. Low & Co. Ltd. In the action out of which Appeal No. 88 of 1929 arises there was a claim for royalty, cess, damages and interest. In the action out of which Appeal No. 77 of 1930 arises there was involved the question of royalty and interest only, but before this Court the question arises as regards royalty. The matters which come before us are questions of cess, damages and interest.

(2.) I propose, in the first place, to deal with the position of the defendants in the action. Under a patta dated 1908 the plaintiff had got a prospecting lease with regard to certain mining lands. In March 1915 by reason of an option which has been granted by a sub-lease of 1914, Pattinson, defendant 1, took a mining lease for the unexpired term created by the patta of 1908 in favour of the plaintiff, and it is under that lease of 1915 that this claim is brought. It is not necessary to state any other fact at the moment in dealing with the position of the three defendants in action.

(3.) It is clear that on the merits of the questions themselves, that is to say the question of cess, interest and damages, considerations which apply to one apply to the others; but Mr. I.R. Das in appearing for all the defendants contends that there are some other questions which are applicable to defendants 2 and 3 only and on the submissions which he makes it is contended that they must he dismissed from the action. The New Sinidih Coal Co., that is defendant 2, appears to have been a company which was promoted by Messrs. Pattinson and Low, who where the lessees under the lease of 1915. There is no clear evidence regarding them, but it is suggested in the plaint that Pattinson, Low and the New Sinidih Coal Co. are one and the same person. That statement may be true in the sense that there are no shareholders in those two companies other than Pattinson and Low, but of that we have no evidence. But it cannot be said that the New Sinidih Coal Co. Ltd. and Low and Co. Ltd. are the same person and persons as Pattinson and Low in the eye of the law. There is no dispute that they defendants 2 and 3, are companies which have been incorporated under the Companies Act and the position therefore in law is that they are separate legal entities.