UNION OF INDIA Vs. VISHAV NATH VERMA HUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that Kisan Vikas Patras could not have been issued to the complainant Vishwanath Verma-Karta (HUF). The complainant-Vishwanath has Karta of HUF purchased Kisan Vikas Patras of amounting Rs. 1,73,000/- vide application dated 29.10.1997 vide Registration No. 20472. Kisan Vikas Patras of value Rs. 46,700/- were issued. They matured for payment and the payment was not made. The complaint was filed.

(2.) THERE may be some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that HUF could not have taken Kisan Vikas Patra.

(3.) AS regards the first point, if the employees have accepted the amount and issued Kisan Vikas Patra technically speaking in terms of the rules pointed out, there would not be a contract but it would resemble a contract covered by the provisions of second part of Section 73 of the Contract Act. It would be mentioned that the deposit was riot gratuitous. It may be further mentioned that Section 72 of the Contract Act further provides that a person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. It would be worthwhile to quote the second part of the consequences in such like matters: 'Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract�When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. Explanation�In estmating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.