{"id":130246,"date":"1980-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980"},"modified":"2016-01-12T15:00:27","modified_gmt":"2016-01-12T09:30:27","slug":"union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1330, \t\t 1980 SCR (3) 893<\/div>\n
Author: A Koshal<\/div>\n
Bench: Koshal, A.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJ. K. GAS PLANT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nKOSHAL, A.D.\nBENCH:\nKOSHAL, A.D.\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 1330\t\t  1980 SCR  (3) 893\n 1980 SCC  (3) 469\n\n\nACT:\n     Contract Act,  Section 70,\t Scope of-Conditions  to  be\napplied- Government  of India  Act,  1935,  Section  175(3),\napplicability of-Defence  of India Act, Section 17(2), scope\nof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant had supplied some steel to the respondent\nplaintiff Company  for manufacturing  gas plants  at Rampur.\nOnly a\tpart of\t the steel  so supplied was utilized for the\nintended purpose  and with  regard to the rest, the Regional\nDeputy Iron & Steel Controller, U.P. Circle, Kanpur directed\nthe  respondents   through  a  letter  dated  8th  \/10th  of\nNovember, 1944\tto deliver  the same  to the U.P. Registered\nStock Holders Associations and to send to the Kanpur office,\nthe bill  of costs  of the  material, handling\tcharges etc.\nmade in the name of Iron & Steel Controller, Calcutta. Since\nthe order  contained in that letter could not be implemented\non account  of lack of transport facilities, the Kanpur Con-\ntroller, directed  the respondent  company  to\tdeliver\t the\nsurplus steel  to M\/s  G. Brothers  Ltd., Rampur and to this\nextent\tthe   order  dated   8th\/10th  November\t 1944  stood\nmodified.\n     Though the\t surplus material  was\tdelivered  to  Govan\nBrothers between  11th April  1945 and\t30th of April, 1945,\nthe price  therefor to\tthe tune  of Rs. 43,728-6-6 remained\nunpaid inspite\tof repeated  demands made by the respondent.\nUltimately,  the   Iron\t &  Steel  Controller  informed\t the\nrespondent to take up the matter with Govan Brothers.\n     As the  price of the steel remained unpaid by the Union\nof India  as well as G. Brothers the plaintiff company filed\nits suit for Rs. 46,652-14-6 which was inclusive of interest\non the\tprincipal price calculated at the rate of 6 per cent\nper annum from April, 1945, upto the date of the institution\nof the\tsuit, after serving the defendant with the requisite\nnotice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n     The trial\tCourt decreed  the claim  of  the  plaintiff\ncompany in  full and also directed that it would be entitled\nto the\tcosts of  the suit as also interest at the rate of 3\nper cent  per annum  from the date of the institution of the\nsuit to\t the date  of payment. The trial Court held that the\nKanpur Controller  had undertaken  the liability  to pay the\nprice of  the goods to the plaintiff Company even in respect\nof the\tdelivery to G. Brothers and that the defendant could\nnot escape liability by reason of the contents of section 65\nof the\tIndian Contract\t Act even  though the  provisions of\nsection 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, had not\nbeen complied  with. The  contention raised by the defendant\nto the effect that section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act\nwas a bar to the suit was negatived.\n     In appeal,\t the High Court agreed that Section 17(2) of\nthe Defence of India Act would be a complete bar to the suit\nif it was one for damages or\n894\ncompensation but  held that  the suit was not of that nature\nand, on\t the other hand, it was for recovery of the price of\nthe goods  supplied to\tG. Brothers as was also found by the\ntrial Court. It further held that even though the provisions\nof section  175(3) of  the Government  of India Act were not\ncomplied   with\t   the\t agreement    resulting\t  from\t the\ncorrespondence\twhich\ttook  place  between  the  plaintiff\ncompany and  the officers of the defendant was good. Relying\non Section  70 of  the Indian  Contract Act and on the basis\nthereof, it  held the  plaintiff company  to be\t entitled to\nrecover the price of the goods from the defendant even if it\nwas assumed that the provisions of section 175(3) were a bar\nto  the\t  recognition  of  the\tcontract  envisaged  by\t the\ncorrespondence between the parties. The High Court dismissed\nthe  appeal,   but  granted   a\t certificate  under  Article\n133(1)(a) of the Constitution to the appellant.\n     Dismissing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The suit\t is  not  one  for  compensation  or\ndamages etc. as contemplated by Section 17(2) of the Defence\nof India Act and hence is not barred by nat section [898 A].\n     2.\t The   legality\t of   the  matter  under  which\t the\nrespondent company  transferred its  stock  to\tG.  Brothers\ncannot be  allowed to  be questioned at the appellate stage.\nThe question  whether the  requirements of clause (5) of the\nIndian Iron  and Steel\tControl order, 1941 which postulates\nonly a written direction for disposal of surplus stocks were\nsatisfied or  not is  a mixed question of fact and law which\nwas never raised in the Courts below. Further the plea taken\nin paragraph  (4) of  the written  statements filed  by\t the\nappellant was  categorically to\t the effect  that \"the fresh\ninstructions issued  to the  plaintiff are  contained in the\nletter in  the possession  of the plaintiff\" runs counter to\nthe factual  part of  the argument. Besides another question\nwould  arise  whether  the  word  \"written\"  in\t clause\t (5)\naforesaid is directory or mandatory. [898 C-D]\n     3. Three conditions must be satisfied before Section 70\nof the\tIndian Contract\t Act can be invoked: first, a person\nshould lawfully\t do something  for another person or deliver\nsomething to  him;  second,  in\t doing\tthe  said  thing  or\ndelivering  the\t said  thing  he  must\tnot  intend  to\t act\ngratuitously; and third, the other person for whom something\nis done\t or to\twhom something\tis delivered  must enjoy the\nbenefit thereof. [898 H, 899 A]\n     In the instant case, the appellant had enjoyed the full\nbenefit of  the delivery  of the  goods to  G. Bros. and not\nmerely an indirect benefit thereof. [901 B]\n     State of  West Bengal  v. M\/s.  B. K.  Mondal<\/a> [1962]  2\nSuppl. S.C.R. 876; reiterated.\n     S.I. Indian  Rly. Co.  v. Madura  Municipality,  A.I.R.\n1964 Madras 427; distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL  APPELLATE\tJURISDICTION  :\t  Civil\t Appeal\t No.
\n1273\/70.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and Decree
\ndated 28-1-1966\t of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal
\nNo. 431 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
895<\/span><\/p>\n
     P.P. Rao,\tSubodh Markendeya, R. Venkataramani and Miss
\nA. Subhashini for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Soli.  J.\t Sorabjee  and\t Rameshwar  Nath   for\t the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KOSHAL, J.\t This appeal  by certificate  granted  under
\narticle 133(1)(a)  of  the  Constitution  of  India  by\t the
\nAllahabad High\tCourt is directed against its judgment dated
\nthe 28th  of January,  1966, confirming\t on appeal  a decree
\npassed by  the Civil  Judge, Kanpur, for the recovery of Rs.
\n46,652-14-6 with interest at the rate of 3 percent per annum
\nfrom the date of the institution of the suit till payment in
\nfavour of  M\/s. J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Company Limited
\nagainst the sole defendant, namely, the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  case of  the plaintiff  company may  be briefly
\nstated thus. The Government of India had supplied some steel
\nto the\tplaintiff company  for manufacturing  gas plants  at
\nRampur. Only  a part  of the  steel so supplied was utilized
\nfor the\t intended purpose  and with  regard to\tthe rest the
\nRegional Deputy\t Iron and  Steel  Controller,  U.P.  Circle,
\nKanpur (here  in after referred to as the Kanpur Controller)
\ndirected the  plaintiff company\t through a  letter dated the
\n8th\/10th of  November, 1944 (exhibit 16) to deliver the same
\nto the U.P. Registered Stock Holders Association Kanpur (for
\nshort the Association). In relation to the recovery of price
\nof the material the letter stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Your bill  for cost\tof the material supported by
\n     original receipts\tfrom suppliers should be made out in
\n     the name  of lorn\tand Steel  Controller, Calcutta, and
\n     submitted to  this office.\t Please make  out a separate
\n     bill for  handling, storage expenses, etc., and send to
\n     this office supported with original freight and payee’s
\n     receipt.’
\n     The order\tcontained in  letter exhibit 16 could not be
\nimplemented on\taccount of lack of transport facilities. The
\nKanpur Controller  therefore directed  the plaintiff company
\nto deliver  the surplus\t steel to  M\/s. Govan Brothers Ltd.,
\nRampur (hereinafter  referred to as G. Brothers) and to this
\nextent the  order  contained  in  letter  exhibit  16  stood
\nmodified
\n     The plaintiff  company delivered  to  G.  Brothers\t the
\nsurplus material  lying with it between the 11th April, 1945
\nand 30th of April, 1945. The deliveries totalled 135 tons, 6
\ncwt., 1\t quarter and  1 pound, the price whereof amounted to
\nRs. 43,728-6-6\twhich remained\tunpaid inspite\tof  repeated
\ndemands\t made  by  the\tplaintiff  company  through  letters
\naddressed to  the Kanpur  Controller to\t whom the  bills had
\nbeen forwarded\tas desired. Ultimately the plaintiff company
\nwas informed  by the  Accounts officer\tattached to the Iron
\nand Steel  Controller, Calcutta,  that it should take up the
\nmatter with G. Brothers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
896<\/span><\/p>\n
     As the  price of the steel remained unpaid by the Union
\nof India  as well as G. Brothers the plaintiff company filed
\nits suit for Rs. 46,652-14-6 which was inclusive of interest
\non the\tprincipal price calculated at the rate of 6 per cent
\nper  annum   from  April,  1945,  up  to  the  date  of\t the
\ninstitution of\tthe suit,  after serving  the defendant with
\nthe requisite  notice under  section 80 of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n
     3. In its written statement the Union of India admitted
\nthe correctness of the order contained in letter exhibit 16.
\nIt pleaded however that\t order was cancelled in toto and not
\nmerely in  regard to the party to whom the plaintiff company
\nhad to\tmake over  the surplus\tsteel. It  was\tspecifically
\ndenied that  the disputed  goods had  been delivered  to  G.
\nBrothers at the risk and responsibility of the defendant and
\nthat the  defendant Was\t liable to pay the price thereof. It
\nwas asserted  that the\tdefendant was merely controlling the
\nsupply and  distribution of  iron and  steel  and  that\t the
\nliability to  pay the price of any goods dealt with by it in
\nthe exercise  of its powers of control rested upon the party
\nreceiving the  goods. Another  plea taken  was that the suit
\nwas not\t maintainable in  view of  the provisions of section
\n175(3) of  the Government  of India Act, 1935, which enjoins
\nthat a\tcontract between the Government of India and a third
\nparty has  to be in writing and in a particular form. It was
\nemphasized that\t G.  Brothers  alone  were  liable  for\t the
\npayment demanded by the plaintiff company.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The  trial court held that the Kanpur Controller had
\nundertaken the\tliability to  pay the  price of the goods to
\nthe plaintiff  company even in respect of the delivery to G.
\nBrothers and  that the\tdefendant could not escape liability
\nby reason  of the  contents’ of\t section 65  of\t the  Indian
\nContract Act even though the provisions of section 175(3) of
\nthe Government\tof India  Act, 1935,  had not  been complied
\nwith. The  contention raised  by the defendant to the effect
\nthat section  17(2) of the Defence of India Act was a bar to
\nthe suit  was negatived\t by  the  trial\t court.\t Some  other
\nfindings were also arrived at which are not relevant for the
\npurposes of  this appeal.  The trial court therefore decreed
\nthe claim of the plaintiff company in full and also directed
\nthat it\t would be  entitled to the costs of the suit as also
\ninterest at  the rate  of 3 per cent per annum from the date
\nof the institution of the suit to the date of payment.\n<\/p>\n
     5. When the first appeal came up for hearing before the
\nHigh Court the contention based on the provisions of section
\n17(2) of  the Defence  of India\t Act was  reiterated on\t the
\nground that  the suit  was one\tfor damages or compensation.
\nSection 17(2) states:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Save as  otherwise expressly\t provided under this
\n     Act, no  suit  or\tother  legal  proceeding  shall\t lie
\n     against the Crown for
\n897<\/span>
\n     any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything in
\n     good  faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of
\n     this Act  or any  rules made  thereunder or  any  order
\n     issued under any such rule.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court agreed with the learned counsel for the
\ndefendant that\tthis section  would be a complete bar to the
\nsuit if it was one for damages or compensation but held that
\nthe suit  was not  of that nature and, on the other hand, it
\nwas for\t recovery of  the price\t of the goods supplied to G.
\nBrothers  as   was  also  found\t by  the  trial\t court.\t The
\ncontention was\ttherefore rejected  as untenable.  The\tHigh
\nCourt then  proceeded to  examine the  true  nature  of\t the
\ntransaction culminating\t in the\t delivery  of  steel  to  G.
\nBrothers and held that the defendant had failed to establish
\nthat the  direction regarding  preparation and submission of
\nbills contained in letter exhibit 16 had been cancelled when
\nthe plaintiff  company was  required to deliver the goods to
\nG. Brothers.  It was  further  held  that  even\t though\t the
\nprovisions of  section 175(3) of the Government of India Act
\nwere not  complied with\t the agreement\tresulting  from\t the
\ncorrespondence which  took 1  place  between  the  plaintiff
\ncompany and  the officers of the defendant was good. In this
\nconnection reliance  was placed\t on  Debi  Prasad  Srikrisna
\nPrasad Ltd.  v, Secretary  of State(l).\t The sheet anchor of
\nthe judgment  of the  High Court however was its reliance on
\nsection 70  of the  Indian Contract  Act and  on  the  basis
\nthereof it  held the  plaintiff company\t to be\tentitled  to
\nrecover the price of the goods from the defendant even if it
\nwas assumed that the provisions of section 175(3) were a bar
\nto  the\t  recognition  of  the\tcontract  envisaged  by\t the
\ncorrespondence\tbetween\t the  parties.\tIn  this  connection
\nreference was  made to\tNew Marine Coal Co. (Bengal) Private
\nLtd. v.\t Union of  India<\/a>(2). It\t was argued  before the High
\nCourt that the conditions requisite for the applicability of
\nsection 70  of the Indian Contract Act were not available in
\nthe present  case in  as much  as the defendant had not been
\nshown to  have enjoyed\tthe benefit of the transaction which
\naccrued only  to G.  Brothers. The High Court however took a
\ncontrary view with the observation:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The benefit or advantage that has been derived by
\n     the defendants  lies in  the fact that it has been able
\n     to distribute  the\t stock\tto  persons  of\t its  choice
\n     according to the rules and regulations framed by it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was\tin these  premises that the High Court dismissed the
\ndefendant’s appeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n
898<\/span><\/p>\n
     6. The  argument based  on section 17(2) of the Defence
\nof India Act has been reiterated before us but it has merely
\nto be  noticed to be rejected. We are clearly of the opinion
\nthat the  suit\tis  not\t for  damages,\tetc.,  such  as\t are
\ncontemplated by that section.\n<\/p>\n
     7. It  was seriously  argued on behalf of the defendant
\nthat  throughout   the\tperiod\t during\t which\t the  Kanpur
\nController  dealt   with  the\tmatter\tin  dispute  he\t was
\nexercising the\tpowers conferred  on him  under the Iron and
\nSteel Control  order, 1941,  that under clause of that order
\nthe plaintiff  company could  dispose of  its stock of steel
\nonly in\t pursuance of  a written  direction from  the Kanpur
\nController  and\t that  the  mandate  issued  by\t the  Kanpur
\nController to  the plaintiff company requiring the latter to
\ndeliver the  goods to G. Brothers having been found to be an
\noral one,  the whole  transaction fell\toutside the ambit of
\nthe law so that the Union of India could not be bound by it.
\nThe  argument  as  it  stands  does  not  lack\tplausibility
\nalthough it  would be  a question whether the word ‘written’
\noccurring in clause (S) of the Indian Iron and Steel Control
\norder is  directory or mandatory. However we refuse to allow
\nthe argument to be raised and that for two reasons. Firstly,
\nit is  a mixed\tquestion of  fact and  law which  was  never
\nraised in  the courts  below. Secondly,\t the plea  taken  in
\nparagraph 4  of the written statement filed by the defendant
\nwas categorically to the effect that “the fresh instructions
\nissued to  the plaintiff  are contained in the letter in the
\npossession of the plaintiff”, which plea runs counter to the
\nfactual part of the argument. In this view of the matter the
\nlegality of  the order\tunder which  the  plaintiff  company
\ntransferred its stock to G. Brothers cannot be allowed to be
\nquestioned at this a stage.\n<\/p>\n
     8. The  only other ground put forward in support of the
\nappeal was  that the  provisions of section 70 of the Indian
\nContract Act were not applicable to the facts of the present
\ncase. That section reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Where a person lawfully does anything for another
\n     person or delivers anything to him, not intending to do
\n     so gratuitously,  and  such  other\t person\t enjoys\t the
\n     benefit  thereof,\t the  latter   is  bound   to\tmake
\n     compensation  to  the  former  in\trespect\t of,  or  to
\n     restore, the thing so done or delivered.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     As pointed\t out in\t State of  West Bengal\tv. M\/s.\t B.K
\nMondal,<\/a> three  conditions  must\t be  satisfied\tbefore\tthis
\nsection can be invoked:\n<\/p>\n
     “The first\t condition is  that a person should lawfully
\n     do something for another Person or deliver something to
\n     him. The  second condition\t is that  in doing  the said
\n     thing or ‘delivering the said
\n899<\/span>
\n     thing he  must not\t intend to act gratuitously; and the
\n     third is  that the\t other person  for whom something is
\n     done or  to whom  something is delivered must enjoy the
\n     benefit thereof.  When these  conditions are  satisfied
\n     section  70   imposes  upon   the\tlatter\tperson,\t the
\n     liability to make compensation to the former in respect
\n     of or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On behalf\tof the defendant the objection raised to the
\napplicability of  this section to the transaction in dispute
\nis two-fold. The first contention in this behalf is that the
\ndelivery to  G. Brothers  was unlawful-a contention which we
\nhave already  turned down.  Secondly  it  is  said  that  no
\nbenefit at all was derived from the transaction by the Union
\nof India  and that  its sole beneficiaries were G. Brothers.
\nThis objection has not only been overruled by the High Court
\nbut appears  to us  also to  be without\t substance. In\tthis
\nconnection reference  may be  made to  some documentary\t and
\noral evidence.\tTo  begin  with,  letter  exhibit  16  which
\ndirected the  plaintiff company\t to deliver the goods to the
\nAssociation specifically required that the plaintiff company
\nwould make  the bills  in the  name of\tthe Iron  and  Steel
\nController, Calcutta,  and send\t them  for  payment  to\t the
\nKanpur Controller,  The inference  which may  reasonably  be
\ndrawn from  the contents  of the  letter is  that the Kanpur
\nController was dealing with the goods as if they belonged to
\nthe Government\tof India  whose duty  it was to pay for them
\nwhen they  changed hands, and that the identity of the party
\nto whom\t the goods  were to  be delivered  by the  plaintiff
\ncompany under  the  orders  of\tthe  Kanpur  Controller\t was
\nimmaterial. Secondly,  the Kanpur Controller (Mr.R.R. Chari)
\nin his\tdeposition dated  the 24th of June, 1946 made before
\nthe  Second  Special,  Tribunal,  Lahore  (Camp\t Bombay)  in
\nCriminal Case No. 3 of 1946, stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In September,  1944, J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing
\n     Co., Rampur,  Ltd., handed\t over 137  tons of  iron and
\n     steel  to\t Messrs.  Govan\t  Brothers,  Rampur,   under
\n     instructions from our department. Messrs Govan Brothers
\n     thus held the, materials on behalf of the Government.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It has  been urged by learned counsel for the defendant
\nthat this  statement is not admissible in evidence as it was
\nnot made  at the  trial of  the case in hand. But’ it is too
\nlate in the day for such an objection to be entertained. The
\nstatement was  admitted in  evidence as\t exhibit 15  at\t the
\ntrial presumably, without objection and cannot now be thrown
\nout. According\tto it  G. Brothers  held the supply of steel
\nmade to then by the plaintiff company not for themselves but
\non behalf  of the Government. Besides, a letter (exhibit 51)
\nwhich was issued by the
\n900<\/span>
\nKanpur Controller  to Mr.  Siddiq Ali Khan of the Department
\nof Industries and Commerce, Rampur, also states:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In this,  connection I may mention that the steel
\n     is virtually  the property\t of the Government of India,
\n     War Transport Department and under no circumstances can
\n     the Government  loose ,  money in\tthe  bargain.  I  am
\n     obtaining the  actual cost\t of the\t materials plus\t all
\n     incidental charges\t and I\twill let you know the amount
\n     to be  paid by  each party along with written orders re
\n     gularising the  issue of these materials to the various
\n     parties. I\t have to  hold you  and you  in turn Messrs.
\n     Govan Bros. (Rampur) Ltd., responsible for the recovery
\n     of the cost of the materials when intimated to you.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There is  no reason  for us  to hold,  in view  of this
\nstatement that\tthe steel  supplied by the plaintiff company
\nto G. Brothers was not being held by the latter on behalf of
\nthe Government\tof India  and if  that be so, the Government
\nmust be\t held to have reaped full benefit of the delivery to
\nG. Brother’s  and it is immaterial how the steel supplied to
\nthe latter was dealt with later on.\n<\/p>\n
     9. Learned\t counsel  for  the  defendant  cited  S.  1.
\nRailway Co. v. Madura Municipality  for the proposition that
\nthe benefit to the defendant was in any case an indirect one
\nwhich  would   not  fall  within  the  ambit  of  the  third
\ncondition; envisaged  by the provisions of section 70 of the
\nIndian Contract\t Act. In  that case the South Indian Railway
\nhad, widened a culvert in compliance with an order passed by
\nthe Provincial\tGovernment under  certain provisions  of the
\nRailways Act,  1890. The  work was  done primarily  for\t the
\nbenefit\t of   the  private   owners  of\t  property  in\t the
\nneighborhood. The Railway Company however sued the Municipal
\nCommittee   within   the   territorial\t limits\t  of   whose
\njurisdiction the  culvert lay for the cost of widening it on
\nthe ground  that the  Municipal Committee received a benefit
\nbecause it  recovered taxes  from the owners or occupiers of
\nthe property.  In turning down the claim of the South Indian
\nRailway Company\t Leach, C. J., who delivered the judgment of
\nthe division  Bench consisting of himself and Lakshmana Rao.
\nJ. stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “This is  a very  indirect benefit, and section 70
\n     can in our opinion only have application where there is
\n     direct benefit to the person for whom the work is done.
\n     The persons  who are  enjoying the benefit of this work
\n     are the  owners and  occupiers of\tthe buildings in the
\n     locality. It would be doing violence to
\n901<\/span>
\n     the section to say that in these circumstances the work
\n     was done for the benefit of the municipality.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The judgment  of the Division Bench was upheld by their
\nLord ships  of the  Privy  Council  in\tGovernor-General  In
\nCouncil, Represented  by the  General Manager.\tSouth Indian
\nRailway\t v.   Municipal\t  Council,   Madura,   Through\t its
\nCommissioner along  with the  reasons on which it was based.
\nBut then  the case  is of  no help  to the defendant who had
\nenjoyed the  full benefit  of the  delivery of\tgoods to  G.
\nBrothers and not merely an indirect benefit thereof.\n<\/p>\n
     10. For  the reasons  stated the  appeal fails  and  is
\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed\n902<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1330, 1980 SCR (3) 893 Author: A Koshal Bench: Koshal, A.D. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: J. K. GAS PLANT DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1980 BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA CITATION: 1980 […]<\/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-130246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980 - 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-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980\" \/>\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 J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-12T09:30:27+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=\"19 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-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T09:30:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2871,\"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-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T09:30:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980\"}]},{\"@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 J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980 - 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-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-12T09:30:27+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980","datePublished":"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T09:30:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980"},"wordCount":2871,"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-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980","name":"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T09:30:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-j-k-gas-plant-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs J. K. Gas Plant on 29 April, 1980"}]},{"@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\/130246","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=130246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}