AMAR NATH DOGRA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 10-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
657 
such an interpretation on the provisions of cl. (a) 
of s. 49( l) of the C. P. Tenancy Act. When it 
says tha.t the transfer of cultivating rights in sir 
land has to be made expressly all that it means is 
that a transfer by implication will not be enough. 
Finally Mr. Sinha's point is that the words 11a.ll the 
rights and privileges" in the recital do not govern 
the interests specified in the clause just preceding 
these words but they govern following words '(six-
teen anna in mauza Gondkhami and twelve anna in 
rnauza Amaldihi to Seth Kaluram etc ... .'' Apart from 
such a construction rendering the expression 
meaningless it would be ungrammatical to read the 
expression as applying to •'sixteen anna. in mauza 
Gondkhami and twelve anna in rnauza Amaldihi 
etc.'' 
Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal 
and accordingly we dismiss it with costs. 
Appeal dUm-is-Jed. 
---
AMAR NATH DOGRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GA.JENDRA.GADKAR, K. N. 
WANOHOO, N. RAJAGOP.AL.A. AYYANGAR and 
T. L. VENKATARAMA. .A!YAR, JJ.) 
Suit again•t Government-Notice-Plaint not conforming 
to Civil Procedure-Maintainability-Punjab Excise Acl (Punjab 
Ace I of 1914), S. 40-Code of Oivil p,.ocedure (Act v. of 
1908), 8. 80. 
The appellant who obtained a monoply vend-licence for 
the retail sale of country-liquor, served during the subsistance 
of the license a notice under S. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code 
on the Government claiming damages for the alleged breach 
of certain stipulations. 
Thereafter the Excise Authorities 
11162 
Radhakri shnad4s 
v. 
Ealut .. m 
Mudholkar J. 
1962 
.April 10, 
196:! 
Amar .Nath D,.gra 
... 
Union of Indio 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (HJ63) 
suspen.ded the license and themselves took over the manage· 
ment of the vend shops and instituted proceedings for the 
recovery of the monthly instalments due from the appellant . 
The appellant filed a suit for a permanent injunction ~gainst 
the State to restrain it from realising the balance of the license 
fees. That suit was withdrawn and the present suit was 
inst.ituted claiming damages on various counts including 
damages consequent upon the suspension of the license. The 
Lower Court dismissed the suit for want of a proper notice 
under s. 30 of the Civil Procedure Code and also as barred by 
s. 40 of the Punjab Excise Act. 
It also however, recorded 
its findings on the merits. The High Court confirmed the 
dbmissal of the suit but reversed the finding on one of the 
items of the claim. It was contended in this Court that the 
notice under s. 80 was proper and that the suit was mainta• 
inable. 
Held, that if the first suit following the issue of a notice 
under s. UO against the Government was withdrawn and a 
second suit bled, if the notice satisfied the r~quircmcn ts of law 
in respect of the second suit there was no necessity for a fur• 
ther notice before filing the subsequent suit. 
The notice shou:d be construed not pedantically Lut in 
the light of common sense without bein~ hypercritical about 
the language but as the purpose of the notice is to convey 
substantial information-relative to the claim on the basis of 
which the recipient of the notice can consider the claim of the 
would-be plaintiff with a view to avert the suit, if possible, 
the: notice in the present case did not serve that purpose. 
State of Madras v. 0. P. Agencies, A. I. R. (1960) S.C. 
1309 and Dhian Sing k Sobha Singh v. Union of India, ( 1958) 
S.C.R. 781, referred to. 
Held, further, that the plaint was at variance with the 
notice and claimed reliefs based on a cause of action arising 
subsequent to the notice and so even on a literal reading of 
s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, it could not be said that 
there had been compliance with it, 
B~ld, also, that as regards the claim for the refund of 
the advance deposit, the su.it did not lie as it was barred by 
r;. 40 of the Punjab Excise Act, of 1914. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 417 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
I 'S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
659 
order dated December 31, 1958, of the Judicial 
Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh at Simla in RP.gu-
lar Civil First Appeal No. 4 of J 958. 
A. V. Viswanatha SaBtri and Gopal S.inyh, for 
the appellant. 
V. D. J!Iahajan and P. D. Menon, for the 
respondent. 
I ~62. April 10. 
The judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
AYYANGAR, J.-This appeal, l'Y special leave, is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.