TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Notice of Suit under Section 80</h1> <h3>STATE OF MADRAS Versus C.P. AGENCIES</h3> STATE OF MADRAS Versus C.P. AGENCIES - 1960 AIR 1309 Issues:Validity of a notice of suit under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the controversy in an appeal regarding the validity of a notice of suit given under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 80 mandates that no suit can be filed against the Government or a public officer until after the expiry of two months from the service of a notice stating the cause of action, plaintiff's details, and reliefs claimed. The purpose of Section 80 is to provide sufficient notice to the Government or public officer about the case to be brought against them. The notice must inform the defendant of the nature of the suit, facts supporting the claim, and the reliefs sought. The cause of action must be clearly stated in the notice for it to be valid.The Court emphasized that the cause of action includes every fact necessary to support the plaintiff's right to judgment. The notice must specify the grounds on which the plaintiff seeks a favorable court decision. The Court examined the plaintiff's cause of action, which focused on the recovery of godown rent owed by the first defendant. The plaintiff's claim in the suit was solely for godown rent, interest, and lawyer's fees. The Court clarified that historical details and inducements in the plaint are not part of the cause of action but serve as background information.In analyzing the notice given under Section 80, the Court reviewed the contents of the notice (Ex. P-6). The notice detailed the supply of black gram to the first defendant by the plaintiff through the Assistant Marketing Officer. It mentioned the non-dispatch of goods due to transport issues and a claim for interest. The Court considered whether the plaintiff's claim was based on a contract for godown rent or damages for use and occupation. The notice described the claim as 'godown rent,' indicating a contractual basis. The Court concluded that the notice sufficiently stated the cause of action, enabling the defendant to understand the claim and decide whether to accept or contest it.The Court highlighted the need to interpret Section 80 with common sense, emphasizing that the notice should not be scrutinized pedantically. The Court observed that the notice, sent through a lawyer, clearly indicated a claim for godown rent based on a contract. The notice provided essential details regarding the transaction, quantity of goods stored, rate of rent, and the defendant's failure to pay. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the notice adequately informed the defendant of the plaintiff's claim, meeting the requirements of Section 80.
TaxTMI 