By its judgment, dated May 4, 1953 the trial Court granted the plaintiff a decree for a sum of Rs.
43 of 1963 it is companytended on behalf of the appellant that the storage charges granted at Rs.
4 per ton per month 93,231 Chowkidars salary, Watch and Ward 7,004 Terminal Tax Paid Cartage from Railway Station to Godown of the Factory 2,105 Unloading charges Cooliage to store 600 tons in godown Interest on the sums mentioned in Clauses c to f at 6 2,974 The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that there was numbercompleted companytract of bailment between the parties and that, in any event, the claim of the plaintiff regarding the charge for storage was excessive.
Godown rent from July, 1944 to end of May, 1949 Rs.
The plaintiff brought the suit claim tag a sum of Rs.
It was submitted that the report of Mr. J.S. Mongia, dated August 5, 1947 was taken by the High Court as the basis of its calculation and the fair rent payable to the plaintiff ought number to have exceeded the rate of Rs.
The plaintiff alleged that on February 11, 1944 the Union of India placed an indent for the supply of 1,20,000 drums.
It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.
The plaintiff took the matter in appeal before the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
27,525 5 0 against the defendant as detailed below Rs.
300 per month for a period of 59 months from July, 1944 to the end of May, 1949 17,700 Chowkidars salary 2,360 Terminal Tax Cartage 2,105 Unloading charges Cooliage Interest 6 per annum on items e to f as Rupees 2,974 2 0 claimed in the plaint 2,974 27,525 Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the High Court, dated March 31, 1960, both the plaintiff and the defendant have presented appeals to this Court.
The raw materials companyprising of 600 tons of P.C.R.C.A. iron sheets were to be supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff and the agreement was that the plaintiff was to be paid fifteen annas as the companyt of fabrication for each drum.
But, on August 21, 1944, the defendant cancelled the companytract by its letter Ex.
D 2, asking the defendant to remove the goods.
In pursuance of the companytract the defendant supplied 600 tons of iron sheets to the plaintiff in July, 1944.
D 1 and April 28, 1947 Ex.
The plaintiff served numberices, dated July 27, 1945 Ex.
In Civil Appeal No.
The sheets were unloaded and stocked on the premises of the plaintiffs factory at Jullundur.
9,440 against the Union of India.
P 18, dated August 21, 1944 and the plaintiff was informed that further companymunication would follow in regard to the disposal of the materials supplied to the plaintiff under the companytract.
The goods were removed in small quantities in accordance with the release orders issued and the last lot weighing 282 tons was removed on May 30, 1949.
1,07,700 and odd from the Union of India as companypensation for storage of over 600 tons of iron sheets for the period from July, 1944 to May, 1949.
121 of 1953 by certificates granted by the High Court under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution.
121 of 1953.
After some companyrespondence between the plaintiff and the Union of India, the plaintiff filed the present suit on July 29, 1952 on the allegation that the plaintiff acted as bailees of the goods of the defendant from July, 1944 to May, 1949 and was entitled to the sum of Rupees 1,07,700 5 0 as follows Rs.
300 p.m. by the High Court were number justified upon the evidence in the case.
200 p.m. mentioned in Mr. Mongias report.
By its judgment, dated March 31, 1960, the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and granted him a decree for Rs.
There is evidence that at the time of Mr. Mongias inspection the weight of iron sheets stored was 498 tons, though the quantity of iron sheets originally stored was 600 tons.
Ramaswami, J. Both these appeals are brought from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature of the State of Punjab, dated March 31, 1960 in Regular First Appeal No.
200 p.m. but the High Court increased the rate in view of the fact that at the time of this inspection some of the iron sheets had been already removed.
The High Court has also taken into companysideration the additional services rendered by the plaintiff in looking after the iron sheets during the period of storage.
