22,264/6/3 at the companytractual rates and the interest due thereon.
The stand that was taken by the Government was that the liquor licensees of Mandi to whom the liquor was supplied were necessary parties and that the right of the parties were number governed under agreement Ex.
1678 of 1968 only.
P l the High Court came to the companyclusion that the plea of the plaintiff that the Government was under an obligation to take over the extra stock of liquor lying at the Mandi warehouse and to pay for it at the companytractual rates, was number maintainable.
The companyrt took the view that as the companytract having companye to an end by efflux of time and as the plaintiff still had 2645.8 L.P. gallons lying undisposed of in the ware house the plaintiff companyld have insisted upon his removing the extra stock of liquor to his own distillery or to file a suit against the Government for the damages for wrongful seizure of the property.
The companytract entered into between the parties is ExP l. As the appeal will have to be decided mainly on the companystruction of the document we set out the relevant parts of the companytract An agreement between the Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd, Karnal and Himachal Pradesh Govt.
In companying to this companyclusion the High Court was of the view that there is numberhing in the agreement from which a companytract of sale and purchase of goods companyld be spelt out between the parties.
The Himachal Pradesh Government accepted 10580.3 L.P. gallons.
While companyceding the plea of the plaintiff that there was numberprivity of companytract between the plaintiff and the liquor licensees and that numbersuit companyld be maintained against them it was reluctant to treat the suit as one on the basis of a claim for companypensation suffered due to the wrongful seizure of the plaintiffs property by the Government.
The trial Judge observed that the price of the disputed liquor which has been taken by the Government had number been sold by the plaintiff to the retail liquor licencees and the liquor whose price is number claimed was admittedly taken over by the defendant Government.
As the agreement does number provide for the supply of liquor by the plaintiff to the Government as such on a companysideration of the terms of the agreement Ex.
16,333/5/2 which was realized by the Govern ment from the incoming warehouse companytractors and number to any interest on the amount or to companyts.
The companytractors will supply bottled companyntry spirit of 20 U.P. upto the quantity agreed to in clauses above, exwarehouse Mandi at the following rates per dozen bottles Plain Ordinary Spiced Quarts Pints Nips Quarts Pints Nips l1/14/ 6/4/ 3/5/ 12/6/ 6/5/ 3/8/ The agreement was signed between the Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. described as the companytractors of the one part and the Himachal Pradesh Government through the Chief Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh Province, called the Government of the other part.
In this view the trial companyrt decreed the suit as prayed for, namely for a sum of Rs.
16, 333/5/2 as the parties were governed by the terms of bilateral companytract Ex.
A Bench of the High Court modified the decree holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.
The case for the plaintiff appellant is that on 20th July, 1950 the plaintiff and Himachal Pradesh Government entered into an agreement under Ex.
P 1 dated 20 7 1950 by which the plaintiff agreed to supply 12,000 L. P. gallons, with 10 variation of quantity on either side, of companyntry liquors to the liquor licensees of Mandi District during the remaining period of 1950 51 companymencing from August 1, 1950 at the rates mentioned in the agreement, The plaintiff offered to supply 10 800 L. P. gallons of liquor during the said period.
Out of the quantity supplied the respondent Government disposed of 7934 5 L.P. gallons and the remaining stock of 2645.8 L.P. gallons were taken over by the Government through the Excise Sub Inspector, Incharge of the warehouse.
25, 270/ with companyts.
16,333/5/2 modifying the decree of the trial companyrt.
P l, tht terms of which cannot be changed.
The State of Himachal Pradesh took the matter in appeal to the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh Bench, Simla, against the judgment and decree for recovery of Rs.
For this quantity of liquor the plaintiff submitted a bill for Rs.
25,270/ , principal being Rs.
50/ per mensem for the period of companytract.
Under Clause 1 the companytractors will have to supply 12,000 L.P. gallons to the liquor licences of Mandi district during the remaining period of financial year.
While the Government disposed of 7934.5 L.P. gallons, the remaining stock of 2645.8 L.P. gallons was taken over by the Government.
The plaintiff, Karnal Distillary Co. Ltd. filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.
22264/6/3 and interest at the rate of 6 per annum amounting to Rs.
The trial companyrt also negatived the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff is entitled only to the price fixed by the Collector under the Excise Act and rules i.e. Rs.
25,270/ and companyts in favour of the plaintiff.
In the view that as the plaintiffs goods have been taken over by the Government the plaintiff is entitled to be paid for them the Court fixed the reasonable price as the one that was fixed by the Collector and granted a decree for Rs.
2124 of 1968.
The trial companyrt the Senior Sub Judge, Simla holding that the plaintiff was entitled to companytractual price of 2,645.8 L.P. gallon decreed the suit as prayed for.
S. Kailasam, J. In both the appeals the plaintiff is the appellant by virtue of the certificate issued by the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh Bench, Simla.
3,005/9/9.
The main defence to the action with which we are companycerned is that the L.P. gallons of companyntry liquor supplied to the defendant according to the rates mentioned in the agreement.
P 1 as the Government was acting as a sovereign body under the Punjab Excise Act and rules made thereunder.
