ASSOCIATED OIL MILLS LTD Vs. 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 1 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 15 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 20 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 23 May 1942 to 1 November, 1942. At the time, however, when evidence was adduced before the arbitrator the claim was restricted to the period between the 1 June, 1942 and 24 October, 1942. There is no objection on the part of the Government to the 1 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 n September, 1942 The District Judge awarded Rs. 63,259-12-0 under this head calculating as already stated for the period between 1 June, 1942 and 15 October, 1942 It would appear that the claimant applied to the proper authorities for permission to work the factory on the 6 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 15 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 11 September, 1942 and again on the 14 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 14 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 11 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 15 October. That is the only point argued in the appeal filed by the Government. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

(3.) In the appeal filed by the claimant two points were taken on its behalf One is that interest should have been awarded by the learned District Judge on the amount which he has decreed. The second is that the learned District Judge is wrong in allowing only Rs. 100 by way of costs to the claimant, while allowing a like amount of costs to the Government though the claimant has very substantially succeeded before him.