JUTE AND GUNNY BROKERS LTD versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.(AND CONNECTED APPEALS)

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 17-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I961 
Ga11ga DuU 
MuYarka 
v. 
Kartik 
Chandra Das 
Shah]. 
February r7. 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
was not in pursuance of any contract express or 
implied, but was by virtue of the protection given by 
the successive statutes. This occupation did not confer 
any rights upon the appellant and was not required to 
be determined by a notice prescribed by s. 106 of the 
Transfer of Property Act. 
In that view of the case, this appeal fails and is 
dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
JUTE AND GUNNY BROKERS LTD. 
AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 
(and connected appeals) 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
' 
Requisition and Acquisition of Property-Orders by Govern-
ment of India-Notice on managing agents-Validity-Holders of 
Pucca delivery order, if owners of goods-Estoppel-Defence of India 
Act, z939 (35 of z939)-Defence of India R.11les, z939, rr. 75A, zz9-
Code of Civil Procedure, z908 (Act V of z908), 0. XXIX, r. 2-
lndian Companies Act, z9z3 (7 of I9z3), ss. 2(zz),z,,.S-Indian Sale 
of Goods Act, z930 (3 of z930), s. z8. 
The Government of India entered into an agreement with 
the President of Argentine Institute for Promotion of Trade to 
supply hessian in return for licences for shipment to India of 
food-stuff purchased there and with a view to implement that 
agreement issued orders under r. 75A(1) of the Defence of India 
Rules, 1939, on the managing agents of certain jute mills on 
September 30, 1946, requisitioning hessian and directing them 
and any other person in possession of the said goods to deliver 
them to the Director of Supplies, Calcutta. Although 'in the 
heading of the notices after the names of the managing agents it 
was not stated that they were being addressed as managing 
agents of such and such mills, the schedules attached to them 
made it clear that they were addressed as managing agents of 
such and such mills. On the same day notices of acquisition 
under r. 75A(2) were served on the said managing agents and 
they were further informed that under r. 75A(3) the goods would 
vest in the Government at the beginning of the same day free 
from any mortgage, pledge, lien and other similar encumbrance. 
The notices of acquisition were also accompanied by schedules 
similar to those accompanying the requisition <;>rders. 
The 
38.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
821 
Government of India tried to take possession of the hessian but 
was resisted by the mills and the holders of pucca delivery 
orders and brought the suit, out of which th~ present appeals 
arose, for enforcing the said orders of requisition and acquisition. 
The Defence of India Act, 1939, and the Rules made thereunder, 
had in the meantime come to an end and the question before the 
court~ below was whether the orders of requisition and acquisi-
tion as served were effective in law. The trial judge held that as 
there were no valid orders of requisition as the mills had not 
been properly served and since the goods were subject to pucca 
delivery orders, the mills as well as the Government were 
estopped from challenging the ownership of the holders of the 
said delivery orders. The appeal court held that the orders of 
requisition were valid and binding, that the mills, and not the 
holders of the delivery orders, were the owners of the goods but 
that the notices of acquisition had not been served as required 
by r. 75A(2) of the Rules and,. therefore, there was no valid 
acquisition under r. 75A(3J of the Rules. 
Held, that the requisition of the goods C,Juld. be effected 
either by taking possession of them or by requiring them to be 
placed at the disposal of the requisitioning authority. Since in 
the present case, the mills and not the holders of the delivery 
orders were admittedly in possession of the goods on the date of 
the requisition, the proper persons to be served with the orders 
were the mills. 
Since the Rules did not expressly provide as to the manner 
in which orders of requisition in writing under r. 75A had to be 
served, r. n9(1) must apply and as the orders in the present case 
concerned an individual corporation, they had to be served in 
the. manner prescribed by 0. XXIX, r. 2 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure. 
The word "officer" as defined by s. 2(ii) of the Indian Com-
panies Act, 1913, includes a managing agent and such definition 
can be utilised for the purpose of the Code and regard being had 
to the nature of his duties there can be no doubt 

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