GHANSHYAM DASS AND OTHERS versus DOMINION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 20-03-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

)· 
1 
• 
• 
229 
GHANSHYAM OASS ANO OTHERS 
v. 
• 
DOMlNION <:1F INDIA AND OTHERS 
March 20, 1984 -
[D.A. l>ESAI, A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI,'.JJ.] , 
Contract with Government and claims arisillg therefrom-Contractor issues 
notice to Gove,rnment under section 80 C.P.C. (before the amendment in· 1976) 
hut dles before the insti~t!on of the suit-The legal representatives of the contrac-
tor institutes the suit on the basis of the notice issued by the contractor-Whether a· 
fresh notice under section 80, C.P.C. is necessary and for want of such_ a fresh 
notice the· suit itself ii not maintainable-Code of Civil Procedure (Act Vof 1908) 
section 80 (as is stood before the Amendment Act of 1976), Scope of. 
The plaintiff's father Seth Lachhman Dass Gupta entered into a contract 
with the Governor General-in-Council for the suppJy of CharcoaJ tO the Military 
Supply Depot, Agra and received payments for the same at the contractual rate 
froln time to time. Tfi.e contract contained an escalation clause viz. cl. 8 to the 
*' effect 1hat in case the Price of charcoal was increased bY more than 10% of the 
stipulated rate during the subsistence of the co·ntract', the contractor would be 
entitled to the price at the higher rate. During the periOd of..pie contract, the 
rate of charcoal went up continuously. The military aul!'"orities paid at the 
enq,anced rate for the part of supplies w.hi!C for the rest they refused to· pay more 
than the contractual rate. He accordingly set.ied a notice to the Government 
under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 J!laking a claim for payment of 
a sum of Rs. 20, 119.so p. in terms of clause 8 of the contract beint1 the dill'erence 
between the enhanted rate and the contractual rate for the supplies paid 'for. 
But before.he could bring tl).e si.Iit against tbe Government," he died. Thereupon_, 
the respondents brought a suit as his legal heirs and successo1s.claiming the 
amount. ,the defendants contested the claim inter alia on 'the ground that the 
notice given by Seth Lachhman Dass could not eoure for the benefit of the plain· 
tiff's ~nd. therefore the suit was bad for want of notice under s. 80 of the Code. 
The Court of first inftance held that no further notice under s. 80 was necessary 
as the notice served by the plaintiff's father Seth Lachhman Dass must enure to 
their benefit. 
On appeal, the High Court reversed his decision on the point and held that 
the notice given by the plaintiff's father was insufficient and wns not a valid 
notice under s. 80 of the Code insofar as the plaintiff'• were concerned. Against 
the judgment, the plaintiff's preferred an appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appoal, th• Court 
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
A 
B 
• 
c 
D 
F 
G 
• 
~30 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1984} 3 s. C.R. ·,,( 
HELD : 1. The question as·· to ... whether a, notice under s. 80 is valid or 
not is a question of judicial construction. S. 8Q of the Code is but a part of the 
Procedure Code passed to pro't'ide the regulation and machinery, by -means of 
wblbh the. courts may do justice between the parties. It is therefore merely a 
part of the adjective law and deals. with procidure alone and must be interpreted 
in a manner so as_ ~o subserve and advag.ce the cause of justice rather than to 
defCat it. As far as possible, no Proceedings in a court of law should be aUowed 
to -be defeated on mere technicalities. This is the principle oil -which OQ.rs laws 
of procedure are based. [238A, 239G·H, 240A-CJ 
2. The whole object of serving a notice. under s. 80 is to give the Govern-
ment Sufficient warning of the case which is going to be insti~ted against it' and 
that the GOvemment, if it so wished ca.n settle the claim without litigation or 
afford restitution without recourse to a court of law. Though the terms of s. 80 
. have to. be strictly complied with, thai does not mean that the notice should be 
scrutinised in a pedantic manner di.vorced from COlJlmon sense. The point to be 
con1idere'd is whether the notice gives suffiCient information as to the nature Or 
the claim such as would enable the recipient to avert the litigation. If the notice 
substantially fulfills its work of intimating the parties concerned generally of the y.., 
nature of the suit intended to be filed, it would be sufficient compliance of the 
. section. ·While interpreting ttie pfe .. amended Section the courts must have due 
regatd to the change in. law brought about by sub·s. (3) of s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.