Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1107 (PNJ)

Union Of India (Uoi) v. Telu Ram Ram Chander

2004-09-29

HEMANT GUPTA

body2004
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 26,808.11P as the price of 253 bags of Maize weighing 230 quintals 33 kilograms was decreed. 2. The plaintiff consigned 253 bags of Maize weighing 230 quintals 33 kilograms on 15.10.1967 from Gharaunda Railway Station on Northern Railway to Howrah vide Railway Receipt Ex.PW 10/3. The consignment goods were not delivered back to the plain- tiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the consigned goods were neither delivered back at Gharaunda nor were they carried to Howrah and thus were detained illegally. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 26,808.11P as the price of the consignment having purchased the same in open market. 3. It was the stand of the defendant that vide notification dated 19.11.1966 the export of Maize was prohibited from any place to outside the State. Therefore, the goods consignment through the Railway was without permit by the plaintiff. The Railway Authorities have also asked the plaintiff to take back the delivery of the consignment vide letter dated 27.10.1987 Ex.Dl. 4. The learned trial court dismissed the suit but by the first Appellate Court decreed the same after it was found that the consignment of goods was auctioned by the Railway Authorities and the amount realised was kept by the Railway Authorities. 5. It has come in evidence that the consignment of maize was not the subject matter of any criminal trial and such goods were in the custody of Railway Authorities which was subsequently auctioned and price realised. 6. Before this court the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the export of Maize being prohibited by law, the consignment could not have been carried out by the appellant to Howrah therefore, the contract with the railway was void. Reliance was placed upon Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co., A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 504. There is no dispute with the said proposition that the consignment prohibited by any law cannot be carried out. However, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff is entitled to goods or money equivalent to goods. Even if the contract could not be carried out by the railway, but the consignment could not be fortified by the Railway Administration. However, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff is entitled to goods or money equivalent to goods. Even if the contract could not be carried out by the railway, but the consignment could not be fortified by the Railway Administration. It was required to be returned to the plaintiff. 7. Admittedly, the goods have not been returned to the plaintiff. The railway was bound to return the goods if the same could not be exported. It has no power or jurisdiction to confiscate the goods. The same have been auctioned by the Railway Administration and therefore, the action of the appellant in retaining the gods and selling the same entitles the plaintiff to recover the price of the said goods. Such finding recorded by the first Appellate Court does not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularities warranting interference by this court in second appeal. 8. No subsequential question of law arises for consideration of this court in this appeal. 9. There is no merit in this appeal, Dismissed.