Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/111/1990 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 111 of 1990
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA - Appellant(s)
Versus
SAURASHTRA
CHEMICALS LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BIPIN I MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1,
MS
SAMTA PATEL FOR NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
Date
: 31/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
consent of both the parties, this Second Appeal is taken up for
final hearing.
I
have heard Mr. Bipin I. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. I
have also considered the resistance placed by Ms. Samta Patel,
learned counsel appearing for Nanavati Associates for the
respondent.
I
have considered both the judgments, that is, one of the trial court
dated 30th November, 1987 passed by learned Joint Civil
Judge [Junior Division] Porbandar in Regular Civil Suit No. 278 of
1986 and another judgment dated 8th January, 1990,
passed by the learned Assistant Judge, District-Junagadh at
Porbandar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1988. The suit was filed
for recovery of total sum with interest on account of loss sustained
by the plaintiffs and on appreciation of evidence and facts placed
by the parties, the learned trial judge decreed the suit. The first
appellate court appreciated the evidence and the contents that were
placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
respondent, and while hearing the First Appeal, dismissed the same.
Thus, this is the case of two concurrent findings. Ultimately, the
case placed by the plaintiff was based on facts and findings
recorded by both the courts below are on facts. As such, no
substantial question of law can be said to have involved in the
matter. True it is that while admitting the appeal, this Court has
framed question of law as involved in the appeal, more particularly,
in the background of grounds mentioned in the memo of the appeal.
On
plain reading of both the judgments of the two courts below, this
Court is of the view that there is no merit in the appeal and the
question of law framed by this Court also revolves around the facts
that were appreciated by both the courts below. There is no element
of error in even appreciating the evidence. When loss of goods
resulting into financial loss to the plaintiff was found proved, the
defendant-railway administration is supposed to make that loss good.
For short, there is no merit in the appeal and therefore, the appeal
is dismissed.
According
to Mr. Mehta, total decretal amount has been deposited by the
railway administration in the trial court. Therefore, now the
plaintiff can recover the decretal amount lying in the trial court.
It will be open for the plaintiff to see that the amount deposited
by the railway administration is in accordance with the decree
passed. The appeal is dismissed.
[C.K.
BUCH, J.]
pirzada/-
Top