{"id":110805,"date":"1976-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-02-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976"},"modified":"2017-06-29T21:38:55","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T16:08:55","slug":"union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate, … on 1 March, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate, … on 1 March, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 879, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 504<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTEEL STOCK HOLDERS' SYNDICATE, POONA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  879\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 504\n 1976 SCC  (3) 108\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1990 SC 104\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n     Railways Act. 1890 (as amended in 1961)-Ss. 72, 73, 76,\n78(d)-Scope of-Delay  in delivery  of Goods-Loss of interest\non capital-If,\tcould be  measure of damages-If Railways Act\noverrides Contract Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A\tconsignment   of  iron\t goods\twas  booked  by\t the\nrespondent by  rail on\tDecember 15,  1961. The\t due date of\ndelivery under\tthe contract  or usage\tof the\trailways was\nDecember 25,  1961. As\tthe goods  were diverted,  they were\nactually delivered  on July 21, 1962. The respondent filed a\nsuit for  damages alleging  negligence on  the part  of\t the\nrailway in  that, by  reason of\t diverting the\tconsignment,\nthere was inordinate delay in its delivery which resulted in\nloss to\t it by\tway of\tinterest on capital. The trial court\ndecreed the suit but in the matter of damages by way of loss\nof interest  it gave  6% per annum instead of 12% claimed by\nthe respondent. The District Court dismissed the appellant's\nappeal, and  the High  Court dismissed\tthe second appeal in\nlimine.\n     On appeal\tto this\t Court\tit  was\t contended  for\t the\nappellant that\t(i) since  the cause  of action was based on\ndelayed delivery,  the case  was covered by the Railway Act,\nas amended in 1961, that the applicable section is s. 76 and\nthat since  the conditions  mentioned therein  had not\tbeen\nfulfilled, the respondent was not entitled to a decree; (ii)\nthat the  respondent could  claim for loss of profit or loss\nof market  as the  same was  expressly barred by s. 78(d) of\nthe new\t Act; and  (iii) that  the  respondent's  claim\t for\ndamages was  not actionable  in the absence of any agreement\nproviding interest  on capital\tas a  measure of damages. It\nwas contended  for the\trespondent that even if s. 76 barred\nthe remedy,  loss of profit or market resulting from delayed\ndelivery would\tamount to \"deterioration\" contemplated by s.\n76.\n     Dismissing the appeal to this Court,\n^\n     HELD: In  view of the finding of fact arrived at by the\ncourts below, the respondent is entitled to damages. [515B]\n     1. (a)  The case  is covered  by the new Act and not by\nthe old\t Act as\t contended by the respondent. There could be\nno question  of liability arising when the goods were booked\nand the contract was entered into between the respondent and\nthe railways,  because, there  was no  presumption that\t the\ncontract would result in breach. [512B-C]\n     In the instant case, the cause of action arose when the\nconsignment was\t delivered to  the respondent  on  July\t 21,\n1962, that  is, after  the new\tAct  came  into\t force.\t The\nreasonable transit  period having expired on January 1. 1962\nthe breach occurred after the new Act came into force.\n     (b) Section  76 of the Act has a very limited scope: it\ncontemplates clearly  those  cases  which  fall\t within\t the\ncontingencies contemplated  by it. These contingencies refer\nto certain  physical factors,  viz: actual and physical loss\ndestruction, damage  or deterioration of goods. Where due to\ndelay  on   the\t part  of  the\trailway\t there\tis  physical\ndeterioration or  diminishing of the value of the goods, the\nplaintiff cannot  claim damages by way of loss of profits or\nloss of\t market plus damages sustained by the actual loss or\ndeterioration of the goods. In such a case the plaintiff can\nclaim only  the actual loss in the value of the goods caused\nby destruction,\t damage or  deterioration and  not  loss  of\nprofit. [512F-H]\n     (c) The  word \"deterioration\"  is used  in its ordinary\nparlance, so  as to  include within  its  ambit\t the  actual\nphysical act  of deterioration,\t namely, the  change for the\nworse in the thing itself. [514E-F]\n505\n     B.I. Railway  Co. Ltd.  v. Piana Mal Gulab Singh A.I.R.\n1925 Lah. 255, approved.\n     G.I.P. Railway  Co. & others v. Jugal Kishore Mukat Lal\nA.I.R. 1930  All. 132  and Union  of  India  and  others  v.\nMessrs. Sheobux\t Satyanarayan, A.I.R.<\/a>  1963 Orissa  68,\t not\napproved.\n     (d)The   words    \"loss,\tdestruction,\tdamage\t  or\ndeterioration\" occurring  in s.\t 76  must  be  read  ejuedem\ngeneris to  indicate the  actual and physical loss or change\nin the\tgoods contemplated  by that  section. In the instant\ncase, since there was no physical deterioration of the goods\nat all\twhich were  delivered in the same condition in which\nthey were  booked, the\tcase of the respondent does not fall\nwithin\tthe  four  corners  of\tthe  section.  Nor  can\t the\nrespondent take\t advantage of  s. 76  relying  on  the\tword\n\"deterioration\" because of the finding of negligence entered\nby the courts below. [514G]\n     If s.  76 does  not apply\tthen s.\t 78  would  have  no\napplication because  that section starts with a non-obstante\nclause. [513E-F]\n     (2) Section  78(d), which\tflows out of s. 76, provides\nthat the railway administration shall not be responsible for\nany  indirect  or  consequential  damages  or  for  loss  of\nparticular market.  It merely  incorporates the\t measure  of\ndamages as contemplated by s. 73. [513B]\n     In the  instant case  as the respondent had not claimed\nloss of market or remote damages the question of application\nof s. 78(d) did not arise.\n     3(a) The case of the respondent is clearly taken out of\nthe ambit of ss. 76 and 78. Hence its suit for damages could\nnot be defeated on the ground that it was barred by s. 76 or\ns. 78 of the Act. [515A-B]\n     (b) It  is difficult  to accept  the contention  of the\nappellant that,\t by virtue  of ss.  72 and  73, any contract\nentered into  between the  parties and\tthe liability of the\nrailway was governed purely by the provisions of the Railway\nAct and\t not by\t the  terms  of\t the  contract\tbetween\t the\nparties. [510G]\n     The Indian\t Contract Act  provides\t certain  elementary\nconditions for\ta binding  contract but does not provide any\nparticular  form  of  contract.\t The  fact  that  where\t the\nGovernment is  a party to a contract, the particular form in\nwhich the  contract is\tto be executed has been provided for\nby the Constitution, did not mean that the provisions of the\nContract Act stand superseded by the Constitution or in this\ncase by\t the Railway  Act. Section 72 does nothing more than\nprovide for a particular form in which the contract is to be\nexecuted and  it enjoins that such a form will be prescribed\nby the\trailway administration\tand approved  by the Central\nGovernment. [510H-511-A]\n     (c)   Section   73\t  lays\t down\tthat   the   Railway\nadministration\tshall\tbe   responsible   for\t the   loss,\ndestruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery except in\ncertain cases  which amount  to vis major in which case also\nthe Act\t places responsibility on the railways if it did not\nprove that  it had used reasonable foresight and care in the\ncarriage  of   goods.  The  section,  while  converting\t the\nliability of  the railway  administration  from\t that  of  a\ncarrier\t to   that  of\t an  insurer,  has  imposed  heavier\nresponsibility on the railway administration. [511F-G]\n     4(a) There\t is no question of s. 73 of the Contract Act\nover-riding the\t provisions of\tthe Interest  Act because in\nthe instant  case the Interest Act has no application at all\ninasmuch as  no interest  is claimed  by the  plaintiff; but\ninterest has  been  used  as  a\t measure  to  determine\t the\ncompensation which  the respondent  could seek\tagainst\t the\nappellant for  its negligence in causing inordinate delay in\nthe delivery  of the  goods. The respondent had only claimed\nnominal damages\t for the loss because of the amount of money\nlocked up  for more  than six  months due  to late delivery.\n[517B]\n     (b) The courts below rightly found that the railway was\nguilty of  gross negligence. As a common carrier the railway\nis responsible\tfor breach of contract. There was absolutely\nno reason  for the  railway to\tdivert the  consignment to a\nplace which did not fall on the route at all. [517D]\n506\n     (c) The  trial court  was fully  entitled to scale down\nthe amount of interest from 12% to 6%. [517F]\n     Union of  India v. Watkins Mayore & Company A.I.R.<\/a> 1966\nS.C. 275 distinguished.\n     Digbijai Nath  v. Tirbeni\tNath Tewari A.I.R. 1946 All.\n12 and\tThe Official Receiver, Calcutta High Court & Anr. v.\nBaneshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. A.I.R. 1962 Pat. 155 approved.\n     5. The  present appeal  was concluded  by\tfindings  of\nfact. But  on the  proved facts\t some clear questions of law\narose for  decision and,  therefore, this  was not a case in\nwhich the  High Court  should have  dismissed the  appeal in\nlimine. [507F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1237 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment and Order dated the 24th August, 1967
\nof the\tHigh Court  of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal
\nNo. 798 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     Lal Narain\t Sinha, Solicitor  General for\tIndia, S. N.
\nPrasad,\t and   Girish  Chander,\t  (Not\tpresent),   for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     M. N.  Phadke, P.\tC. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C.
\nMathur\tand   Ravinder\tNarain,\t  (Not\tPresent),   for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J.-This is  a defendant’s appeal by special
\nleave against  the judgment  and decree of the High Court of
\nBombay dismissing  its second  appeal in limine by its order
\ndated August 24, 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t raises important  and interesting questions
\nof law\trelating  to  the  interpretation  of  some  of\t the
\nprovisions of  the Indian  Railways Act\t pertaining  to\t the
\nliability of  the  Railways  for  breach  of  contract.\t The
\nplaintiff\/respondent brought  a\t suit  for  recovery  of  an
\namount of  Rs. 2,378.65\t nP being  the damages for breach of
\ncontract  resulting  from  delayed  delivery  of  the  goods
\nconsigned by the plaintiff through the defendant Railways to
\nbe delivered  at  Poona.  The  plaintiff  which\t is  a\tfirm
\ncarrying on  its business  dealing in  iron goods  booked  a
\nconsignment with  the  defendant  on  December\t15  1961  at
\nBhillai to  be carried\tto Poona and to be delivered therein
\nto the consignee safely and in good condition. The defendant
\nRailways accepted  the offer  under a  Railway Receipt dated
\nDecember 15,  1961. It\tappears that there was some delay in
\nthe delivery  of the goods at Poona and on enquiries made by
\nthe plaintiff  it appeared  that till  May 9, 1962 the goods
\nhad not\t been delivered\t at all.  Thereafter  the  plaintiff
\nserved a  noted claim  and of  suit dated May 9, 1962 on the
\nRailway Administration. Soon after the service of the notice
\nthe consignment was delivered on July 21, 1962. According to
\nthe plaintiff  under  the  contract  or\t the  usage  of\t the
\nRailways the  normal period  of delivery was ten days and as
\ndefendant had  committed an  inordinate delay  in delivering
\nthe goods it was liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. The
\nplaintiff,  however,   calculated  the\tdamages\t by  way  of
\ninterest at  the rate  of 12%  per annum  on the  locked  up
\ncapital of  Rs. 27,332-44  which due  to rise  in prices has
\nswelled to  Rs. 35,476-27  nP. The plaintiff further alleged
\nthat the  delay in  the delivery was due to gross negligence
\nof the defendant Railways which instead of sending the goods
\ndirect from Bhillai to Poona
\n507<\/span>
\ndiverted them  to Aurangabad where the consignment had to be
\nloaded in a meter-gauge train and then to a broad-gauge line
\nand it was only after the defendant received the notice from
\nthe plaintiff  that it\texpedited the delivery of the goods.
\nThe defendant Railways contested the suit on the ground that
\nthere was  no inordinate  delay, nor  there was any contract
\nthat the  goods were  to be delivered within ten days. It is
\nalso averred  that the plaintiff had led no evidence to show
\nthat there  was any  loss of  profits or  rise in the market
\nprice. The  defendant further alleged that the plaintiff was
\nnot entitled  to claim\tinterest as damages. The Trial Court
\naccepted the plaintiff’s case in toto and found-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  that there  was an  inordinate delay  in\t the
\n\t       delivery\t of   the  goods  belonging  to\t the
\n\t       plaintiff at Poona;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  that  the   goods  were\t first\tdiverted  to
\n\t       Aurangabad, although  the route\tfrom Bhillai
\n\t       to Poona\t lay via  Nagpur and Aurangabad does
\n\t       not fall on the route at all; and
\n\t  (3)  that  the   defendant  was  guilty  of  gross
\n\t       negligence and  was,  therefore,\t responsible
\n\t       for loss\t for delay  or deviation in carrying
\n\t       the goods.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Trial  Court, however,  found that\tthe  figure  of\t Rs.
\n27,332-44 the  original amount\twhich was  deposited by\t the
\nplaintiff in  the Bank\tagainst the goods should be taken as
\nthe basis  for calculation  of damages and after calculating
\ninterest at  the rate  of 6%  per annum\t the  plaintiff\t was
\nawarded a sum of Rs. 1250\/- including the notice charges and
\npassed a decree for this amount in favour of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     The defendant  then filed an appeal before the District
\nJudge Poona  who upheld\t the finding  of the learned Munsiff
\nand dismissed  the appeal.  A second  appeal  taken  by\t the
\ndefendant to  the High Court of Bombay was also dismissed in
\nlimine, and hence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Normally it  would appear that the appeal was concluded
\nby findings  of fact  but we  find that\t on the proved facts
\nsome clear questions of law arise for decision and therefore
\nthis was  not a\t case in  which the  High Court\t should have
\ndismissed the appeal in limine.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of the appeal the learned Solicitor-General
\nsubmitted three points before us:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)that as the cause of action of the plaintiff is
\n     based on  the delayed  delivery which arose at the most
\n     on January\t 1, 1962,  the\tcase  of  the  plaintiff  is
\n     covered by\t the provisions\t of the\t new Railways Act as
\n     amended by\t Act 39 of 1961, which is an exhaustive Code
\n     in itself providing a self-contained machinery in order
\n     to determine  the liability  of the Railways and as the
\n     conditions mentioned  in s. 76 of the Railways Act have
\n     not been fulfilled the plaintiff is not entitled to any
\n     decree;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)that  at  any  rate  since\t the  plaintiff\t has
\n     claimed interest  as damages,  in the  absence  of\t any
\n     agreement\tproviding   for\t such\tan   interest,\t the
\n     plaintiff’s claim is not actionable at law; and
\n508<\/span>
\n\t  (3) that the plaintiff could not claim for loss of
\n     profit or\tloss of\t market as  the\t same  is  expressly
\n     barred by s. 78(d) of the new Railways Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As an  alternative argument  it was  also pleaded  that\t the
\nplaintiff has  not averred  in his plaint that there was any
\nrise in\t the prices  because  the  goods  belonging  to\t the
\nplaintiff were\ta controlled commodity and could not be sold
\nwithout a permit, Before claiming loss of profits it was the
\nbounden duty  of the  plaintiff to  allege that\t he had been
\ngranted the permit to sell the goods.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Phadke\t appearing for\tthe respondent\thas repelled
\nthe contentions\t of the appellant on the ground that the new
\nRailways Act  does not\treduce or  diminish the liability of
\nthe railway  administration for\t breach of  contract but  in
\nfact the  Act seeks  to increase  the liability. Secondly it
\nwas submitted  that even  if the  case of the plaintiff does
\nnot fall  within the  four corners  of\ts.  76\tof  the\t new
\nRailways Act, the common law right of the plaintiff to claim
\ndamages against\t the appellant\thas not\t been barred  by the
\nAct. Lastly  it was  submitted that  the plaintiff  has\t not
\nclaimed interest  on any  specified amount  of money but has
\nmerely calculated  the same as a measure of damages which it
\nsuffered due  to the breach of contract and gross negligence
\non the\tpart of\t the Railways  which has  been found  by the
\nCourts below.  Finally it was contended that as the contract
\nwas entered  into between  the parties on December 15, 1961,
\nwhen the  goods were  booked   at Bhillai, the liability for
\ndamages arose  on that\tday and\t the case  of the  plaintiff
\nwould be  covered by  the provisions  of  the  Railways\t Act
\nbefore it was amended by Act 39 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to  answer  the\tcontentions  raised  by\t the
\nparties it  may be  necessary for  us to  trace briefly\t the
\nhistory of  the circumstances  in which\t the Railways Act of
\n1890 was  amended by  Act 39  of 1961.\tWe would, for short,
\nrefer to  the Railways\tAct of 1890 as the “old Act” and the
\nAct as\tamended by Act 39 of 1961 as the “new Act”. It would
\nappear that under s. 72 of the old Act the responsibility of
\nrailway administration as a carrier of animals and goods was
\nclearly that  of a  bailee under ss. 151, 152 and 161 of the
\nIndian\tContract   Act.\t In   other   words,   the   railway
\nadministration was  impressed with  the duty  to  carry\t the
\ngoods with  the same  care and caution which a prudent owner
\nwould apply  in the  case of  his own goods If there was any
\nviolation or breach of the said care and caution expected of
\nthe Railway  it would  have been  liable to damages. Section
\n72(1) of the old Act ran thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  \"(1)\t The\tresponsibility\t  of\ta    railway\n     administration   for    the   loss,    destruction\t  or\n<\/pre>\n
     deterioration of  animals or  goods  delivered  to\t the
\n     administration to\tbe carried by railway shall, subject
\n     to the  other provisions  of this\tAct, be\t that  of  a
\n     bailee under  sections 151.  152 and  161 of the Indian
\n     Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).”\n<\/p>\n
It may be pertinent to note that sub-section (3) of s. 72 of
\nthe old\t Act expressly excluded the principles of the common
\nlaw of\tEngland or in the Carriers Act of 1865 regarding the
\nresponsibility of  common carriers. After our country became
\nfree and the Railways entered the commercial field as one of
\nthe important wings of the Government, there
\n509<\/span>
\nappears to  be\ta  public  demand  for\tmaking\tthe  Railway
\nadministration as  a public  body to  take upon\t itself more
\nonerous\t responsibilities  where  the  rights  of  the\tfree
\ncitizens were involved. Under the British Government most of
\nthe Railways were owned by private companies whose ownership
\nwas to\tbe extinguished\t after lapse of a particular period.
\nSoon after  the freedom\t all the Railways were taken over by
\nthe Central  Government and  run by  it. In  view of the new
\nproblems facing\t the Government\t and the public demand for a
\nchange in the law, the Government appears to have decided to
\nconvert the  responsibility of\tthe railway  from that\tof a
\ncarrier to  that of  an insurer.  But before doing this, the
\nGovernment appointed  a Committee called the Railway Freight
\nStructure Enquiry Committee (1956-57) which recommended that
\nthe responsibility  of\tthe  Railways  in  India  should  be
\nchanged to that of a common carrier instead of a bailee. The
\nCommittee which\t had been  asked to  examine  the  statutory
\nprovisions dealing  with the  responsibility of\t railways as
\ncommon carriers\t was of\t the opinion  that the\tpublic would
\nderive much satisfaction from a radical change from bailee’s
\nresponsibility to  that of  a common  carrier, and that this
\nchange was  bound to tone up the administrative machinery of
\nthe railways  in respect  of effective prevention of transit
\nlosses. In view of the recommendations of the said Committee
\nthe Government\tintroduced a  bill  in\tthe  Lok  Sabha\t for
\namending some  of the provisions of the Railway Act in order
\nto implement  those recommendations.  From a  perusal of the
\ndebates of  the Lok  Sabha when\t this Bill was introduced it
\nwould appear that the Deputy Minister of Railways explaining
\nthe objectives of the Bill observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Taking into\taccount all  aspects of the problem,
\n     it\t is   proposed\tthat   railways\t should\t assume\t the
\n     responsibility of a common carrier instead of that of a
\n     bailee. As\t bailees, the  railways are required to take
\n     as much  care  of\tthe  goods  entrusted  to  them\t for
\n     carriage as  a man\t of ordinary  prudence would,  under
\n     similar circumstances,  take of  his own  goods of\t the
\n     same bulk, quality and value.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  However, closely  following the  legal position in
\n     the United\t Kingdom, it  is  proposed  that  the  basic
\n     responsibility of our railways for loss, destruction or
\n     deterioration etc. of animals or goods be as set out in
\n     the proposed section 73.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  When\tthe  railways  assume  this  responsibility,
\n     broadly speaking,\tthey will  be liable  for loss of or
\n     injury to\tgoods while in transit by rail, arising from
\n     any cause\twhatsoever, unless  such loss  or injury  is
\n     proved by the railways to have been caused by an act of
\n     God, or  by an  act of  war, or  by an  act  of  public
\n     enemies or is proved to be consequence of inherent vice
\n     in\t the   thing  carried  or  is  attributable  to\t the
\n     consignor’s own fault.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Even where  the loss\tis proved by the railways to
\n     have been\tcaused by the excepted perils, just referred
\n     to by  me, the  railways will  not be absolved of their
\n     responsibility unless  they further prove that they had
\n     used reasonable forethought and care in the carriage of
\n     animals or goods.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
510<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  The result  of the  changes proposed\twill be that
\n     the railways  will be paying claims for compensation in
\n     many cases\t where they  are not  paid at  present,\t for
\n     example, in  cases\t of  losses  due  to  running  train
\n     thefts, damage  by wet  in transit in spite of bailee’s
\n     care having been taken etc.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This was  the clear background against which the new Act was
\npassed. Even  the statement  of\t objects  and  reasons,\t the
\nrelevant parts of which may be extracted as under, shows the
\nmain object of the new Act:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Railway\tFreight Structure  Enquiry Committee
\n     (1956-57) has  recommended that  the responsibility  of
\n     the railways in India as carriers of animals and goods,
\n     which is at present that of a bailee, should be changed
\n     to that  of a  common carrier.  There is  also a public
\n     demand for\t such a change. After a careful and detailed
\n     examination  of   the  question,  the  Government\thave
\n     decided to accept the Committee’s recommendation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       x      x\t     x\t    x\t  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) The  Bill seeks  to make\tit clear that in the
\n     case of  through booking of consignments over an Indian
\n     Railway and  a Foreign  Railway, the  responsibility of
\n     the Indian\t Railway as  a common  carrier would  extend
\n     only over\tthat portion  of the  carriage which is over
\n     the Indian Railway;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       x      x\t     x\t    x\t  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) Other  amendments included  in  the  Bill\t are
\n     intended to  rectify certain  defects or ambiguities in
\n     the existing  provisions of the Act which were revealed
\n     by experience in its working.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It appears  that  the  old  s.\t72  was\t completely  deleted
\nincluding  sub-s.   (3)\t which\t expressly  prohibited\t the
\nprinciples of  the common law of England for determining the
\nliability of  the Railways  as common  carriers. Instead the
\nnew s.\t72 laid\t down the form in which a contract was to be
\nexecuted between a consignor and the Railway and a risk note
\nwas provided  for by clause (b). It may be necessary to note
\nan argument  put forward by the learned Solicitor-General on
\nthis  point.   It  was\tsubmitted  that\t by  virtue  of\t the
\nprovisions of  ss. 72  and 73  of the  new Act\tthe  statute
\nsuperseded any contract entered into between the parties and
\nthe liability  of the Railways was governed purely under the
\nprovisions of  the Railways  Act and  not under the terms of
\ncontract which\tmay  have  been\t entered  into\tbetween\t the
\nconsignor and the Railway. We are, however, unable to accept
\nthis argument.\tIt is  well settled  that while\t the  Indian
\nContract Act  merely provides  certain elementary conditions
\nunder which  the contract becomes binding on the parties, it
\ndoes not  provide any  particular form\tor  condition  of  a
\ncontract. It  is, therefore,  clear that  the parties to the
\ncontract may  agree to\ta particular form or condition or of
\nmode in\t which the contract is to be executed. In case where
\nthe Government\tenters into a contract with a person or vice
\nversa a\t particular form  in which  the contract  is  to  be
\nexecuted has  been provided for even by the Constitution and
\nthe contract has to be in that form.\n<\/p>\n
511<\/span><\/p>\n
This does  not mean  that the provisions of the Contract Act
\nstand superseded  either  by  the  Constitution\t or  by\t the
\nRailways Act  which provide  for a particular mode or a form
\nin which  the contract\thas to\tbe entered  into. Section 72
\ntherefore does nothing more or nothing less than provide for
\na particular  form in  which the  contract is to be executed
\nand it\tenjoins that  such a  form will be prescribed by the
\nrailway\t administration\t  and  approved\t  by   the   Central
\nGovernment. The provisions of s. 72 of the new Act run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “72.\tAny   person   delivering   to\t a   railway
\n     administration any\t animals or  goods to  be carried by
\n     railway shall-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) if the animals or goods are to be carried by a
\n     train in tended solely for the carriage of goods, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) if  the goods  are to  be carried by any other
\n     train and\tconsist of  articles of any of the following
\n     categories, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) articles carried at owner’s risk rates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) articles of a perishable nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii) articles mentioned in the Second Schedule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv)\tarticles   in  a   defective  condition\t  or
\n     defectively packed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (v) explosives and other dangerous goods.
\n     execute  a\t note  (in  this  Act  referred\t to  as\t the
\n     forwarding note)  in such\tform as may be prescribed by
\n     the railway  administration and approved by the Central
\n     Government, in which the sender or his agent shall give
\n     such particulars  in respect of the animals or goods so
\n     delivered as may be required”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is not possible from the provisions of s. 72 to spell out
\nthe principle  that the\t new Act  completely supersedes\t the
\nprovisions of  the Contract  Act  both\tin  respect  of\t the
\nconditions and the liability. Section 73 of the new Act lays
\ndown that  the railway\tadministration shall  be responsible
\nfor the\t loss, destruction,  damage, deterioration  or\tnon-
\ndelivery except\t in certain cases which amount to vis major.
\nBut there  also the  proviso confers  responsibility on\t the
\nRailways for  loss etc.,  if the railway administration does
\nnot prove  that it has used reasonable foresight and care in
\nthe carriage of the goods.\n<\/p>\n
     The Solicitor-General  contended that  s. 76 of the new
\nAct is\tthe provision which deals with delay in the delivery
\nand the\t plaintiff can succeed only if his case falls within
\nthe four  corners of  the  section.  Before  answering\tthis
\nquestion, it may be necessary to dispose of a point on which
\nthe counsel  for the parties have joined issue. According to
\nthe Solicitor-General  the liability of the Railway would be
\ngoverned by  the new Act inasmuch as the cause of action has
\narisen after  coming into  force of the new Act. Counsel for
\nthe respondent,\t however, submits  that the  matter will  be
\ngoverned by
\n512<\/span>
\nthe old\t Act because the liability of the Railway arose when
\nthe goods  were booked\tin December  1961. In  our  opinion,
\nthere is a very short answer to this question. The plaintiff
\nhas clearly  and categorically pleaded in paragraph-2 of the
\nplaint that  the cause\tof action  arose at  Poona when\t the
\ncomplete consignment  was delivered to the plaintiff on July
\n21, 1962 i.e. after the new Act had already come into force.
\nFurther more,  it is  also alleged  that the  reasonable and
\nnormal transit\tperiod expired\ton January 1, 1962. In these
\ncircumstances, therefore, according to the plaintiff itself,
\nthe breach  occurred only  after the  new Act  had come into
\nforce-whether it  was January  1, 1962\tor thereafter. There
\ncan be\tno question  of the liability arising when the goods
\nwere booked  and the  contract was  entered into between the
\nplaintiff and  the Railway,  because there is no presumption
\nthat the  contract would  result in  breach.  The  plaintiff
\nwould be entitled to damages only when there was a breach of
\ncontract and  if the  said breach,  even  according  to\t the
\nplaintiff itself, occurred on January 1, 1962 or thereafter,
\nthen it\t is manifest  that the\tcase would be covered by the
\nnew Act and not by the old Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tcontention put\tforward\t by  the  Solicitor-
\nGeneral was  that the  case of\tthe plaintiff  does not fall
\nunder any  of the contingencies contemplated by s. 76 of the
\nnew Act. Section 76 runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “76. A railway administration shall be responsible
\n     for  loss,\t destruction,  damage  or  deterioration  of
\n     animals or\t goods proved  by the  owner  to  have\tbeen
\n     caused by\tdelay or  detention in their carriage unless
\n     the railway  administration proves\t that the  delay  or
\n     detention arose without negligence or misconduct on the
\n     part of  the railway  administration or  of any  of its
\n     servants.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  submitted  that\talthough  there\t was  delay  in\t the
\ndelivery  of   the  goods   on\tthe   part  of\tthe  railway
\nadministration, but  the  railway  administration  would  be
\nresponsible only  if the plaintiff further proves that there
\nhas been  loss, destruction,  damage or deterioration of the
\ngoods by  virtue of the delay. It is true that the plaintiff
\nhas  not   alleged  that   there  was\tany  physical  loss,
\ndestruction, damage or deterioration of the goods, but that,
\nin our\topinion, does  not put\tthe plaintiff  out of court.
\nSection\t 76  appears  to  have\ta  very\t limited  scope:  it
\ncontemplates clearly  those  cases  which  fall\t within\t the
\ncontingencies contemplated  by s.  76.\tThese  contingencies
\nrefer to certain physical factors, viz., actual and physical
\nloss, destruction,  damage or  deterioration of\t goods.\t For
\ninstance, where\t the goods worth Rs. 10,000\/- due to delayed
\ndelivery have  sustained deterioration\tas a result of which
\ntheir value has gone down to Rs. 5,000\/- then once this fact
\nis proved  the railway\tadministration shall  be liable\t for
\nsuch a\tloss or\t the value  of such deterioration. We are of
\nthe opinion  that s. 73 of the new Act, while converting the
\nliability of  the railway  administration  from\t that  of  a
\ncarrier\t to   that  of\t an  insurer,  has  imposed  heavier
\nresponsibility on the railway administration.\n<\/p>\n
     The history  and the  object  with\t which\tthe  radical
\nprovisions of  the new Act were introduced bear testimony to
\nchange of the nature
\n513<\/span>
\nof the liability of the railway administration. But in order
\nto avoid  the payment  of double damages, ss. 76 and 78 have
\nbeen inserted.\tIn other  words, where\tdue to\tdelay on the
\npart of\t the Railway  there  is\t physical  deterioration  or
\ndiminishing of\tthe value of the goods, the plaintiff cannot
\nclaim damages  by way  of loss\tof profits or loss of market
\nplus damages  sustained by  the actual loss or deterioration
\nof the\tgoods. In  such a  case the plaintiff can claim only
\nthe actual  loss  in  the  value  of  the  goods  caused  by
\ndestruction, damage or deterioration and not loss of profit.
\nSection 78(d) which flows out of s. 76 clearly provides that
\nthe railway  administration shall not be responsible for any
\nindirect or  consequential damages or for loss of particular
\nmarket. The  Solicitor-General, therefore, rightly contended
\nthat in cases falling squarely within the four corners of s.
\n76 of  the new\tAct, s.\t 78(d) will  apply. In fact s. 78(d)
\nmerely incorporates  the measure  of damages as contemplated
\nby s. 73 itself. It is well settled that the liability of an
\nordinary carrier  even in  the English\tcommon law  does not
\nextend to  a damage  which is  indirect or  remote. Loss  of
\nprofit or  loss of  a particular  market has  been held by a
\nnumber of decisions to be a remote damage and can be awarded
\nonly if\t it is\tproved that  the party\twhich is  guilty  of
\ncommitting the breach was aware or had knowledge that such a
\nloss would  be caused.\tSection 78(d), however, seeks to bar
\nthe remedy  of this  kind of  damage. In  the instant  case,
\nhowever, as  the plaintiff  itself has\tnot claimed  loss of
\nmarket or  remote damages, the question of application of s.
\n78(d) does  not arise.\tMoreover, in the instant case, it is
\nconceded that  there was  no physical  deterioration of\t the
\ngoods at  all which were delivered to the consignee at Poona
\nin the\tsame condition\tas they\t were booked from Bhillai by
\nthe plaintiff.\tIn these  circumstances,  the  case  of\t the
\nplaintiff does\tnot fall  within the  four corners of s. 76,
\nnor does  it fulfil any of the categories mentioned therein.
\nIf s.  76 does\tnot apply  to the facts of the present case,
\nthen s.\t 78 will  also have  no application,  because s.  78
\nstarts with  a non obstante clause “Notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in  the foregoing  provisions of  this Chapter,  a
\nrailway\t administration\t  shall\t not  be  responsible”.\t We,
\ntherefore, agree with the learned counsel for the respondent
\nthat under the new Act the liability of the Railway has been
\nincreased so  as to take upon itself the responsibility of a
\ncommon carrier.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the respondent submitted that even if s. 76
\nbarred the  remedy of  the plaintiff,  the fact\t that due to
\ndelay in delivery there was loss of profit or loss of market
\nwould amount  to “deterioration\t as contemplated by s. 76 of
\nthe new\t Act. In  support of  this contention,\tthe  learned
\ncounsel relied\ton a decision of the Allahabad High Court in
\nG.I.P. Railway Co. & others v. Jugul Kishore Mukat Lal where
\nSulaiman, Ag. C.J., as he then was, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  clear to  us that  the meaning of the word
\n     “deterioration” in\t s. 161\t which imposes the liability
\n     on the railway company must be the same as in risk-note
\n     form B which lays
\n514<\/span>
\n     down the  special conditions  under which\tthe  railway
\n     company is\t protected. In\tboth  these  “deterioration”
\n     resulting\tfrom  a\t delay\tin  tendering  the  good  is
\n     contemplated. x  x\t x  We\ttherefore  accept  the\tview
\n     expressed by  Mukerji, J.,\t in the\t unreported case and
\n     hold that\tthe word  “deterioration” is  wide enough to
\n     include depreciation  in value  on account of a fall in
\n     the price of the goods.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The same  view appears to have been taken by the Orissa High
\nCourt in  Union of  India  and\tothers\tv.  Messrs.  Sheobux
\nSatyanarayan where  Misra, J.,\tas he  then was, observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Though there was some difference of opinion as to
\n     the import\t of the word “deterioration” used in section
\n     72 of the Indian Railways Act and in section 161 of the
\n     Indian Contract  Act, the\tposition is now well settled
\n     that it is wide enough to include depreciation in value
\n     on account of a fall in the price of the goods.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     As against\t this a\t Division Bench\t of the\t Lahore High
\nCourt in  R. I.\t Railway Co.  Ltd. v.  Diana Mal Gulab Singh
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The ‘deterioration’\tof a thing, whether it be in
\n     quality or\t in value,  implies in\tordinary parlance  a
\n     change for the worse in the thing itself. If a thing is
\n     worth less\t than it  was before only because the market
\n     rate has  gone down  it would be correct to say that it
\n     has  depreciated\tin  value,   but  not  that  it\t has
\n     deteriorated.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Having regard  to the  background and  the\t setting  in
\nwhich the  word “deterioration”\t occurs in  s. 76 of the new
\nAct it\tseems to  us that  the parliament  intended that the
\nword should  be used  in the  ordinary\tparlance  and  in  a
\nrestricted sense  so as\t to include  within  its  ambit\t the
\nactual physical act of deterioration, i.e. the physical part
\nof it,\tnamely, the change for the worse in the thing itself
\nas very aptly put by Martineau, J., in the Lahore High Court
\njudgment referred  to above.  We must  seek to\tdraw a clear
\ndistinction between  a physical deterioration of a thing and
\ndepreciation in\t its value  according to market price. These
\nare two\t separate concepts  having separate ingredients. The
\nwords  used  in\t s.  76\t of  the  new  Act,  namely,  “loss,
\ndestruction,  damage  or  deterioration”  must\tbe  read  as
\nejusdem generis\t so as\tto indicate  the actual and physical
\nloss or\t change in the goods contemplated by s. 76. In these
\ncircumstances, therefore, with due respect, we are unable to
\nagree with  the somewhat  broad view  taken by the Allahabad
\nHigh Court  and followed  by the  Orissa High  Court in\t the
\ncases referred\tto above.  We, on  the other hand, prefer to
\nadopt the  view taken  by the  Lahore High Court in the case
\nreferred to  above. In\tthis view of the matter, it is clear
\nthat the  word “deterioration” used in s. 76 referred to the
\nphysical and  actual deterioration  of the  goods which\t has
\nadmittedly  not\t  taken\t place\tin  the\t present  case.\t The
\nplaintiff cannot take advantage of s. 76 relying on the
\n515<\/span>
\nword “deterioration”  because of  the finding  of negligence
\nentered by  the Courts\tbelow. The  case of the plaintiff is
\nclearly taken out of the ambit of ss. 76 and 78 and his suit
\nfor damage  also cannot be defeated on the ground that it is
\nbarred by  s. 76 or s. 78 of the new Act. We are, therefore,
\nof the\topinion that  in view of the finding of fact arrived
\nby the Courts below the plaintiff is undoubtedly entitled to
\ndamages
\n     This brings  us to\t the second contention raised by the
\nSolicitor  General,   namely,  that  the  plaintiff  is\t not
\nentitled to  interest as damages for breach of the contract.
\nIt was\tsubmitted that\twhat the  plaintiff has\t done is  to
\ncalculate interest at the rate of 12% which has been reduced
\nto 6%  per annum  on the amount deposited by him in the Bank
\nwhich remained\tlocked up  for more  than six  months and to
\nclaim the  same\t as  damages.  It  was\tcontended  that\t the
\nplaintiff plainly  could not  do so  in view of the Interest
\nAct under  which interest can only be charged before suit if
\nso stipulated  by the  parties to the contract. It is common
\nground that  in the  present case  the contract\t between the
\nparties does  not provide  for\tcharging  any  interest\t for
\nbreach\tof  contract.  The  Solicitor-General  relied  on  a
\ndecision of this Court in Union of India v. Watkins Mayore &
\nCompany<\/a> where this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Under the Interest Act, 1839, the Court may allow
\n     interest of  the plaintiff\t if the\t amount claimed is a
\n     sum certain  which is  payable at\ta  certain  time  by
\n     virtue of a written instrument. But it is conceded that
\n     the amount\t claimed in  this case\tis not a sum certain
\n     but compensation  for unliquidated amount. On behalf of
\n     the respondent  it was  submitted by Mr. Aggarwala that
\n     interest may  be awarded  under the  Interest Act which
\n     contains a provision that “interest shall be payable in
\n     all cases\tin which it is now payable by law”. But this
\n     provision only  applies to\t cases in which the Court of
\n     Equity exercises jurisdiction to allow interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the\tabove case  the plaintiff  had brought\ta  suit\t for
\ndamages claiming  a  particular\t quantified  amount  of\t Rs.
\n1,07,700\/- as  compensation for\t storage of over 600 tons of
\niron sheets  for a particular period. This quantified amount
\nincluded a  sum of  Rs. 2,974\/2\/- as interest on the various
\nsums claimed  by  the  plaintiff  as  compensation,  namely,
\ngodown\trent,\tchowkidar’s  salary,  cartage  from  Railway
\nstation to  godown etc.\t The High  Court, however, granted a
\ndecree only  for Rs.  27,525\/5\/-  including  the  amount  of
\ninterest claimed  by the  plaintiff. Thus this Court in that
\ncase was  dealing with interest claimed by the plaintiff not
\nas a  yardstick for assessing damages but as pure and simple
\ninterest on the quantified amount of compensation or damages
\nclaimed by  the plaintiff. This Court held that the interest
\nto the\textent of  Rs. 2,974\/2\/- as claimed by the plaintiff
\ncould not  be allowed  in the  absence of  there  being\t any
\ncontract justifying  the charging  of  such  interest.\tThis
\nCourt was  not at all concerned with a case like the present
\none where  the plaintiff has merely claimed damages pure and
\nsimple and in order to assess the same had applied the
\n516<\/span>
\nyardstick of  charging interest\t at a particular rate on the
\nlocked up  capital for\ta period of more than six months. In
\nthese circumstances,  therefore the  ratio of  the aforesaid
\ndecision  in   Watkins\tMayore\t&  Company  (supra)  is\t not
\napplicable to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     Similarly in Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji
\nRamji which  was relied upon by this Court in Watkins Mayore
\n& Company  (supra) the amount claimed by the plaintiff was a
\nspecified amount  on the basis of which interest was charged
\nwhich had  the effect  of increasing the damages sought for.
\nThat was  a case  of a contractor who had brought a suit for
\nrecovery of  the amount\t due from  the Government Department
\nand had\t added interest\t to the\t total\tclaim  made  by\t the
\nplaintiff. The\tPrivy Council  pointed out that as there was
\nno stipulation\twhich authorized  the  plaintiff  to  charge
\ninterest on  the quantified amount of damages, the plaintiff
\nwas not\t entitled to any interest. Thus, in other words, the
\nratio of  the decision\tin Ruttanji  Ramji’s case as also in
\nWatkins Mayore\t& Company  (supra) would  apply only to such
\ncases where  interest by  way  of  damages  is\tclaimed\t for
\nwrongful detention  of a  debt\tor  where  the\tinterest  is
\nclaimed on  a specified\t amount due  or claimed\t against any
\ndebtor. The  principle adumbrated in the two cases mentioned
\nabove will  not apply  to cases where the plaintiff does not
\nclaim interest\ton a  quantified amount\t or on\tdamages\t but
\nwhere  the   plaintiff\tmerely\t calculates  interest  as  a
\nyardstick or measure to assess the damages which he would be
\nentitled to.  In the  instant case  the\t Courts\t below\thave
\nclearly found  that the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs.
\n27,332-44 in  the Bank\tsoon after  booking the\t consignment
\nwith  the   railway  administration.  The  plaintiff  was  a
\nstockist and  as the  money in\tthe Bank remained idle for a
\nperiod of  more than  six months due to the delayed delivery
\nmade by\t the Railway  on  account  of  its  negligence,\t the
\nplaintiff  merely  claimed  compensation  for  this  delayed
\ndelivery on  the basis\tthat if the amount was not locked up
\nit would  have earned  some interest  which would yield some
\nprofit to  the plaintiff.  Thus it is clear, therefore, that
\nin the\tinstant case  the plaintiff neither claimed interest
\non any\tquantified amount,  nor did  he claim  profit due to
\nloss of market.\n<\/p>\n
     In Digbijai  Nath v.  Tirbeni Nath\t Tewari\t a  Division
\nBench of  the Allahabad\t High Court,  while interpreting the
\ndecision of the Privy Council referred to above, observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We do  not consider\tthat this  case is authority
\n     for the  proposition that interest cannot be claimed by
\n     way of  damages for  breach of  a contract under s. 73,
\n     Contract Act. All that was held in it was that interest
\n     cannot be\tallowed\t by  way  of  damages  for  wrongful
\n     detention of  debt. *  * *\t The position  is  different
\n     where interest  is claimed\t as part  of the damages for
\n     breach of a contract.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A similar view was taken by a Division Bench decision of the
\nPatna High  Court in  The Official  Receiver, Calcutta\tHigh
\nCourt and another
\n517<\/span>
\nv. Baneshwar  Prasad Singh and another. We find ourselves in
\ncomplete agreement  with the  principles laid  down in those
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
     For these\treasons, therefore,  we are  of the  opinion
\nthat the  decision of this Court in Watkins Mayore & Company
\n(supra) does  not appear  to be\t of any\t assistance  to\t the
\nappellant, so  far as  the facts  of the  present  case\t are
\nconcerned. Thus\t it is clear that there is no question of s.
\n73 of  the Contract  Act overriding  the provisions  of\t the
\nInterest Act,  because in  the instant case the Interest Act
\nhas no application at all inasmuch as no interest is claimed
\nby the\tplaintiff at  all but  interest has  been used\tas a
\nmeasure to  determine the  compensation which  the plaintiff
\ncould seek  against the\t appellant  for\t its  negligence  in
\ncausing inordinate  delay in  the delivery of the goods. The
\ncontention raised  by the  learned Solicitor-General on this
\npoint is, therefore, overruled.\n<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff is not claiming the sum decreed by way of
\ninterest but  he is  claiming the  damages calculated  on  a
\nparticular  basis.  As\ta  common  carrier  the\t Railway  is
\nundoubtedly responsible\t for  breach  of  contract.  In\t the
\ninstant case  the Railway  Receipt shows that the goods were
\nbooked to  be carried  from Bhillai to Poona which is on the
\nNagpur\troute.\tThere  was  absolutely\tno  reason  nor\t any
\noccasion for  the Railway to divert the goods to a different
\nroute and  for taking  the same to a different route and for
\ntaking the  same to  Aurangabad which  did not\tfall on\t the
\nroute to  Poona at all. The Courts below, therefore, rightly
\nfound that the Railway was guilty of gross negligence.\n<\/p>\n
     The last  question submitted  by the  learned Solicitor
\nGeneral was  that the  plaintiff was not entitled to loss of
\nprofit or  loss of  market, because  the plaintiff  has\t not
\npleaded anywhere  that he  had obtained\t any permit  for the
\ngoods which,  were a controlled commodity and sustained loss
\nof market.  It is  true that  the plaintiff  has not pleaded
\nthis fact,  but the  plaintiff has not at all prayed for any
\ndamages on  the ground\tof loss of market or loss of profit.
\nThe plaintiff  has only claimed nominal damages for the loss
\nwhich occurred\tto him\tbecause of the amount of money which
\nhe had\tdeposited in  the Bank\tand was locked for more than
\nsix months  due to the delayed delivery. The Trial Court has
\nalready scaled\tdown the  amount from  Rs. 2,378-65  to\t Rs.
\n1,250\/- and  we think  the Trial Court was fully entitled to
\ndo so.\n<\/p>\n
     In these  circumstances, therefore, all the contentions
\nraised by the Solicitor General fail and we find no merit in
\nthis appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n518<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate, … on 1 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 879, 1976 SCR (3) 504 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: STEEL STOCK HOLDERS’ SYNDICATE, POONA DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1976 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Steel Stock Holders' Syndicate, ... on 1 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders' Syndicate, ... on 1 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T16:08:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate, … on 1 March, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T16:08:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976\"},\"wordCount\":6100,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders' Syndicate, ... on 1 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T16:08:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate, … on 1 March, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders' Syndicate, ... on 1 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders' Syndicate, ... on 1 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T16:08:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate, … on 1 March, 1976","datePublished":"1976-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T16:08:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976"},"wordCount":6100,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976","name":"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders' Syndicate, ... on 1 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T16:08:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-steel-stock-holders-syndicate-on-1-march-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate, … on 1 March, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110805","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}