2 and the other defendants.
It was alleged that in December 1949 under companyer of an illegal seizure order issued by defendant No.
price thereof.
The High Court was of the view that in the presence of the finding that the plaintiff had number been wrongfully deprived of the sugar on account of the lawful seizure or its price owing to the certificate proceedings started by the Cane Commissioner the plaintiff was number entitled to any decree against the State.
1,81,700 9 3 with interest by way of damages for illegal removal and detention of sugar or.
3,20,486 2 0 and the Bank held 6239 bags of different varieties of sugar as security.
1 on the ground that the seizure had been effected pursuant to lawful orders which had been made and that the sale proceeds of about 5000 mds.
93,910 10 9 was claimed against defendant No.
A number of issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties.
2 and the other defendants.
The plaintiffs right as a Pawnee companyld number be extinguished by the seizure of the goods in its possession inasmuch as the pledge of the 1 3rd Edn.
These bags were kept in godowns provided by defendant No.
No payment was made to the plaintiff Bank which held the bags of sugar as pledgee under the cash credit agreement.
2 lakhs due from the Bhita Sugar Factory with which defendant No.
The Cane Commissioner who was an unsecured creditor companyld number have any higher rights than the pawnor and was entitled only to the surplus money after satisfaction of the plaintiffs dues.
Alternatively a decree for Rs.
The approach of the trial companyrt was unexceptionable.
3 1846 9 Q. B. 592.
Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated April 23, 1963 of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No.
The suit was resisted by defendant No.
The Bank held the goods as security for the advances made and ,be companystituents either provided the Bank with godown or the Bank kept the pledged goods in godowns of its own and charged rents from the companystituents.
29 p. 222.
1 the Rationing Officer and the District Magistrate, Patna, got the locks of the godown broken open and forcibly and illegally removed 1818 bags of 27D quality of sugar.
goods was number meant to replace the liability under the cash credit agreement.
But it was entitled to a decree against defendant No.
It was intended to give the plaintiff a primary right to sell the goods in satisfaction of the liability of the pawnor.
The other defendant also resisted the suit on various grounds.
The plaintiff prayed for a decree for the return of 1818 bags of 27D quality sugar and, alternatively for re companyery of Rs.
The defendant No.
According to the allegations in the plaint one of the methods of making advances followed by the plaintiff Bank was that the companystituents pledged their merchandise on a cash credit system with the Bank and took advances on the pledged goods.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Halsburys Laws of England 3rd Ed.
29 page 211.
2 stood at Rs.
29 p. 218 219.
420 of 1955.
1,50,039 10 9 which was deposited in the treasury but which was later on attached under the orders of Certificate Officer, Patna, under the Public Demands Recovery Act on account of arrears of sugar cess amounting to Rs.
It is unnecessary to refer to other facts stated in the plaint except to mention that according to the plaintiff it was entitled to recover the sugar which had been seized illegally or to recover the price of that sugar as per schedule 2 of the plaint which the plaintiff would have got if the quantity of sugar which had been seized had been sold in the market on the material day.
Consequently a decree against defendant No.
of sugar were included in the sum of Rs.
1942 of 1966.
They total quantity removed weighed about 5,000 maunds.
The key of the lock of each godown was in the custody of the Bank.
Sarjoo Prasad and R. C. Prasad, for the appellant.
1 State of Bihar filed an appeal to the High Court.
2 had entered into an arrangement pursuant to which the entire quantity of sugar including 5000 maunds which had been seized had companye into possession of defendant No.
Halsburys Laws of England 3rd Ed.
2 and some of its directors defendants 3 to 5.
1 was set aside and instead of decree was granted against the other defendants.
1, the other defendants being the Jagdishpur Zamindari Co. Ltd. defendant No.
Defendants 3 to 5 did number file any appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
P. Singh, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a decree of the Patna High Court in a suit instituted by the appellant against the State of Bihar which was impleaded as defendant No.
2 entered into a cash credit system agreement with the plaintiffs Arrah Branch, the arrangement being that the sugar would be pledged under the cash credit system.
On December 16, 1946 the advance made to defendant No.
