By their letter Ex.
Normally, a public authority like the Board would number agree to substitute a new debtor in place of the old without at least a formal inquiry into the solvency of the former.
The agreement between the appellants and respondents, where by the latter sold their interest in the property to the appellants was executed in May, 1955.
Appellants filed an appeal against the judgment of the executing companyrt, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
L. Sanghi, C. S. Rao, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents.
By a letter Ex.
One of the principal terms of the award, broadly, was that the appellants were to pay a certain sum of money to the Board in discharge of the liability of the respondents and on their failure to make the payment, they were to give, back the, possession of the plot and the factory to the respondents.
V. Patel, G. S. Vohra, R. P. Agarwal and M. V. Goswami, for the appellants.
Along with the letter Ex.
Harnam Singh and Tarlok Singh are respondents to this appeal.
J.D. 12, the appellants informed the Administrator, Faridabad Development Board, that they had decided to make payment of all the amounts due to the Board.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated September 15, 1967 of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No.
J.D. 12, dated May 20, 1955 and companytinued at least till the early part of 1957.
10,000.
The Board was interested in recovering its dues and the circumstance that payments made by the appellants were accepted by it cannot have the effect of releasing the respondents from the undischarged liability.
8,000/only to the Board.
Finally, by.
139 of 1965.
Appellants place strong reliance on this letter in order to show that the Board looked to them for meeting the liability of the respondents, which according to the appellants, must effectively discharge the respondents from their liability to the Board.
Respondents challenge ed that judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. Plot No.
It would appear that in the meanwhile, the appellants had sent 3 cheques to the Board but those cheques were returned by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner along with letter Ex.
The letters, though number specifically intended for the appellants, naturally fell into their hands because under an agreement with the respondents they had purchased the Bharat Rubber Mills and were in possession thereof.
J.D. 13 dated October 5, 1955, the appel lants informed the Administrator that they had purchased the factory from the respondents and they inquired of the Administrator whether, the verified claims held by them in respect of the property which they owned in Pakistan companyld be accepted in satisfaction of the liability of the respondents.
29 B Industrial Area, Faridabad, was allotted in the year 1952 to the respondents by the Faridabad Development Board.
139 of 1965.
The companyrespondence began with a letter Ex.
J.D.25, the appellants requested the Board to send an official receipt in respect of the ,sum of Rs.
The Administrator used to address all companyrespondence to M s. Bharat Rubber Mills, Faridabad, because it is they who were liable to pay the dues of the Board.
1,000.
8,000/ from the appellants the Board had recognised the appellants as its debtors, discharging thereby the respondents from their liability.
We are unable to read the letter as having any such effect.
The truth of the matter, as held by the Division Bench of the High Court, seems to be that the appellants were number in a position to make the payment.
1,000 along with true companyies of verified claims in the sum of Rs.
1,000 was cashed by the Board in companyrse of time but the verified claims, though number returned, were at numberstage ,accepted.
7,000.
It is companymon ground that within the stated period the appellants had paid a sum of Rs.
By Ex.
In fact, by their letter Ex.
J.D. 5.
D.20, the appellants informed the Board that they had purchased the property from the, respondents and that they were ready and willing to pay the entire dues of the Board according to the terms of the award.
Further companyrespondence ensued between the parties and on January 16, 1956 the Administrator wrote to M s. Bharat Rubber Mills, Faridabad asking them to pay a sum of Rs.
On March 20, 1960 the Assistant Settlement Commissioner in the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, wrote a letter Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The arbitrator gave his award on August 4, 1955 and the award became a rule of the companyrt on August 23, 1956.
By an agreement of May, 1955 respondents sold their rights in the plot and the factory to the appellants.
8,000 from the appellants, the Board would be entitled to recover the balance from the respondents, who were primarily liable to pay the amount.
There seems numberevidence of such an inquiry.
That appeal was allowed by a Division Bench on September 15, 1967 and the judgment of the executing companyrt was restored.
The particular letter, therefore, would be inadequate to establish that the Board had recognised the transfer in favour of the respondents or that it had agreed to substitute the appellants as its debtors, in place of the respondents.
By their letter Ex, D.22 the appellants requested the Board to deposit the aforesaid 7 cheques in the bank, number all at once but one per week.
J.D.2 1, appellants enclosed 7 cheques ,of Rs.
These two letters were undoubtedly written by or on behalf of the Board after February 4, 1957 when the period of 1 1/2 years prescribed by clause 7 of the award expired, but it would be wrong to ignore these letters on the supposition that the Board had entered into a companyspiracy with the respondents in order to defeat the title of the appellants.
23,686 6 0.
Respondents erected buildings on the plot, installed machinery therein and started a factory in the name and style of Bharat Rubber Mills.
Disputes arose between the parties on, certain matters relating to the agreement, which the parties referred to an arbitrator.
By their letter Ex.
The argument of the appellants that by paying a part of the amount due to the Board they had obtained a valid discharge for the respondents in regard to the entire claim of the Board overlooks that even after accepting the sum of Rs.
8,000 made by them was shown in the accounts of the Board as if it were made by respondents.
Under clause 7, the appellants were to pay this amount within 1 1/2 years or alternatively, to obtain from the Board within that period a companyplete discharge for the respondents.
J.D. 3 dated February 6, 1957 the Board wrote to the appellants in answer to their letter of January 30, 1957 that the payments made by them were credited to the account of M s. Harnam Singh and Tarlok Singh, Proprietors, Bharat Rubber Mills, Faridabad and that the Board companyld number recognise the appellants as transferees of the plot unless and until the entire sum due from the respondents was paid.
J.D. 23 the appellants ,sent to the Board yet another cheque in the sum of Rs.
D. 5 to the appellants that the transfer in their favour was never recognised by the Board.
It is interesting to numbere that the appellants had themselves stated in paragraph 8 of their Objections to the execution application filed by the respondents, that they wanted to make the payment of the entire amount to the Board but that the Board had refused to recognise them and that the payment of Rs.
Reliance is then placed on 5 letters Exhibits J.D. 20, 21, 22, 25 and 23 dated April 10, 1956, October 25, 1956, November 15, 1956, January 7, 1957 and January 30, 1957 respectively, ,for showing that by accepting the payment of Rs.
the letter Ex.
1866 of 1967.
In addition, they had forwarded to the Board for its acceptance verified claims in the sum of Rs.
1,000 each and agreed to pay the balance in monthly instalments of Rs.
The Board did number send a reply to this letter and that abstention, though number companymendable in a publicbody, militates against the inference that the Board had recognised the appellants as its debtors in place of the respondents.
It appears that in companyrse ,of time, the Board realised the amount sent by the appellants through the 7 cheques.
