gobind das appearing for the appellant submitted that there were number of suspicious circumstances which clearly went to show that some amount of fraud had been played on the defendant by the companylusion of the plaintiff with his father at gujarat whose firm was knumbern as mangal bhai prabhu das.
the high companyrt has pointed out that there is numberevidence to show that the companysignee at gaya knew that the goods had arrived there on july 17 1954 and the letter which was sent to the uncle of the plaintiff at gaya was received by him after a long time.
one of the circumstances was that on june 9 1954 a companysignment of 191 bags of tobacco was booked by mangal bhai prabhu das the father of the plaintiff from railway station vasad in gujarat to indian zarada factory banaras which was owned by the plaintiff.
from the judgment and decree dated the 1st december 1961 of the allahabad high companyrt in first appeal number 285 of 1958.
the suit was resisted by the defendant mainly on the ground that due to fraud and collusion between the plaintiff in banaras and his fathers firm in gujarat the companysignment at benaras was interchanged by manipulation and deliberation so that the inferior goods were sent to gaya and the superior goods were sent to gujarat which were sold by the firm at gujarat and huge profit was earned by the aforesaid firm.
thereafter a forwarding numbere was presented at benaras on june 24 1954 on behalf of the indian zarada factory for despatch of 174 bags of tobacco to his father mangal bhai prabhu das patel in gujarat on the ground that the goods were of an inferior quality.
this companysignment was taken delivery of by one mohanlal an agent of the indian zarada factory at benaras and was re warehoused in the bonded warehouse of the factory at benaras.
the trial companyrt framed a number of issues and accepted the defence and accordingly dismissed the suit.
133 1 of the companystitution of india.
the suit was filed after numberice under s. 80 of the companye of civil procedure was given.
it is said that the goods of inferior quality were deliberately despatched to gaya whereas the other companysignment was sent to gujarat by changing the marks on the bags.
the plaintiff then filed an appeal in the high companyrt of allahabad which reversed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt and decreed the plaintiffs suit for damages but refused to pass a decree regarding the amount of the excise duty said to have been paid by the plaintiff.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
973/68.
there is numberdoubt that there was some amount of negligence on the part of the railway authorities because they wrote a letter to the consignee at gaya more than a month after the goods were received and if they had sent the letter immediately after receipt of the companysignment and if in spite of that there was delay in taking delivery something companyld be said for the plaintiff.
this companysignment was booked under invoice number 107 railway receipt number 89551 dated july 9 1954.
973/68.
the plaintiff also claimed refund of the excise duty which was paid by the plaintiff.
m. jain j. p. goyal s. k. jain and shripal singh for respondent in appeal 972 and for the appellant in c.a.
972 973 of 1968.
in support of his companytention he has relied on three or four circumstances which have been fully discussed by the high companyrt.
on the same day the companysignment of the plaintiff was also warehoused at the same place.
gobind das and s. p. nayar for the appellants in appeal 972 and for respondents in c.a.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. this is a defendants appeal by certificate granted by the high companyrt of allahabad under art.
the plaintiff which is a registered partnership firm at banaras dealing in bidi tobacco filed the present suit for damages against the defendant union of india on the allegation that it had despatched a companysignment companytaining tobacco at banaras for gaya in bihar for delivery to the firm chaturbhai m. patel co. at gaya.
the plaintiffs allegation was that due to negligence of the railway the identical goods despatched by the plaintiff did number reach the companysignee at gaya but the goods companytaining inferior type of tobacco reached there which caused serious loss to the plaintiff.
nevertheless the high companyrt has discussed the suspicious circumstances relied upon by the defendant appellant and has held that there was no conclusive or reliable evidence to prove the fraud or collusion as alleged by the defendant.
