In pursuance of this liberty the suit out of which the appeal before us arises, was instituted in the Court of the District Judge, Mandi on May 5, 1953, which was substantially one for damages for breach of companytract.
He further reversed the finding on one of the items of the claim which the trial Judge had found in appellants favour.
I hereby make demand of the said amounts payable to my client which may either be paid direct to him or to me without delay.
The appellant thereafter applied for a certificate of fitness under Art.
21,460/ was so deposited.
After stating that the appellant had been the successful bidder at the auction and reciting certain of the terms of the companytract, it stated Whereas my client has all along, beginning from April 1, 1952 onwards, been companyplying with the obligations under the agreement regarding auction of the said licenses.,
In paragraph 6 an allegation was made that the plaintiff had bid at the figure of over one lakh and twenty thousands rupees because of the companydition inserted in the terms of the auction that liquor would be supplied in pilfer proof bottles with metal companyers and because of the number fulfilment of this companydition he had lost Rs.
4,222/ , being the sum paid into the Treasury by way of exciseduty in respect of liquor which bad been declared unfit for human companysumption.
45,471/6/ .
052/ for the unworked period of the year of the licence, i. e. from July 1, 1952 to March 31, 1953 which totalled Rs.
In accordance with the terms and companyditions of the auction, 1/6 of the amount of the bid bad to be deposited by him within a month.
A claim was made in the later paragraph for the refund of this sum.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 31, 1958, of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh at Simla in Regular Civil First Appeal No.
Paragraph 10 companyplained that the Government had number taken steps to suppress illicit distillation which had caused loss, though ,the loss was neither quantified number any claim made under that head, while paragraphs II to 13 challenged the legality of the action taken by the Excise authorities in suspending the licence and in taking over the vend shops under their management.
the Government of Himachal Pradesh has miserably failed in honoring and implementing the companyditions thereunder.
Civil Procedure Code to file a fresh suit.
21,460 / which bad been deposited into the Treasury at the time the licence was granted to the appellant and finally in paragraph 19 the plaint made a claim that by reason of government having broken the companytract the plaintiff had lost a profit every month of Rs.
417 of 1961.
74,935/8/3.
345 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Judge of Mandi on November 26, 1952 alongwith certain others in whose names one other liquor licence had been taken and who were evidently similarly situated for a permanent injunction restraining the State of Himachal Pradesh from realising the balance of the licence fees due from him.
The numberice was by a lawyer who had been instructed to serve the Collector of Mandi and the Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh with the numberice under s. 80, Civil Pro cedure Code.
The appellants suit was dismissed.
As the appellant did number pay the monthly instalments due from and after June, 1952 the Collector also took steps for the recovery of these instalments.
In addition, under the same head there was a further claim in paragraph 8 for Rs.
This was followed by an enumeration of the companytravention and these were 1 that standard sized bottles were number maintained by ware house companytractors, 2 Liquor was being supplied in bottles with paper capsules instead of in pilfer proof bottles with metal lids, 3 that month after month in respect of urgent demands the quantity liquor required was either inadequately supplied or number supplied at all.
and there was companyrespondence relating to it.
In paragraph 16 the plaintiff claimed a refund of Rs.
10,714/ each for the months of April and May.
1, 28, 600/ and his bid was accepted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
/8/ per bottle which totalled up to Rs.
The appellant then filed a suit No.
4 of 1958.
D. Mahajan and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
Subsequently thereto there were disputes raised by the appellant that the Excise authorities had defaulted in performing certain of the obligations undertaken by them, in the matter of the supply of liquor etc.
An appeal was thereupon taken by the appellant to the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh who substantially agreed with every one of the findings of the learned District Judge both on the technical objections to the suit as well as on the merits in so far as they were against the appellant.
The appellant was the highest bidder for Rs.
26, 400/ on the total number of bottles that would have been supplied to him if the companytract had gone on for the full year.
April 10.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh affirming a decree of the Senior Sub Judge, Mandi dismissing the appellants suit.
The damages claimed on this account were companyputed in paragraph 18 of the plaint at Rs.
The learned District Judge upheld the technical objections raised but also recorded his findings on the merits and the findings on most of the items of claim were against the appellant.
There appear to have been attempts by the authorities to remedy the situation but apparently the appellant Was number satisfied with the steps taken, with the result that he stopped his sales of liquor and thereafter served a numberice under s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code dated September 2, 1952 on Government making a claim for damages for alleged breach of certain of the stipulations, After receipt of this numberice the Collector of Excise directed the suspension of the appellants licence under s. 36 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and thereafter proceeded under s. 39 of that Act to take over the management of the vend shops which theretofore were under the management of the appellant.
The appellant who had started working his licence made payments of the monthly instalments of Rs.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and Gopal Singh, for the appellant.
The Union of India against whom the suit was brought, raised several defences both on the merits as well as of a technical nature, the latter being mainly two 1 that the suit was bade for want of a proper numberice under s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and 2 that the suit was barred under the Punjab Land Revenue Act as applied to Himachal Pradesh as well as under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and the Rules made thereunder.
This sum amounting to Rs.
There was a public auction on February 25, 1952 at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh for the grant of a monopoly vend licence to sell by retail companyntry liquor for the year April 1, 1952 to March 3 1, 1953.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows.
133 1 b for preferring an appeal to this Court but the same having been rejected, he applied for and obtained special leave from this Court and that is how the appeal is number before us.
Several technical objections were raised to the maintainability of that suit and thereafter the suit was withdrawn on May 12, 1953, with liberty granted under O 23 r. 1.
