TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (7) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aoad. That consignment never reached the destination. Consequently the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 13,880/- as damages. The learned Civil Judge, Moradabad, who tried the suit decreed the plaintiff's claim in a sum of Rs. 10,206/9/- With interest at six per cent from 15-8- 1947 till the date of realisation. As against that decision, the Union of India went up in appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. The decree of the trial Court was assailed on several grounds one of them being that the notice issued under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code is invalid. The High Court accepted the contention of the Union of India that the notice in question is invalid but rejected the other pleas, advanced on its behalf. It accordingly allowed the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wala to Agwanpur. 3. That the aforesaid consignment has not been delivered to us so far due to the Railway's negligence, misconduct and gross carelessness. 4. That the non-delivery of the said consignment we have suffered a great loss and damage, (sic) 5. That on 14-10-1947, we preferred a claim against the Railway and claimed the sum of Rs. 12,554/1/- for the loss of non-delivery of the aforesaid goods. 6. That the Chief Commercial Manager, E. I. Railway by his letter No. A-2/5196/ 47, dated 25-11-47 acknowledged the receipt of our claim. 7. That thereafter nothing was heard from him in spite of our several reminders and requests for early payment. 8. That so far the goods have not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue that the notice purports to emanate from M/s. Raghunath Dass Mulkraj. It is also true that in the body of the notice in several places the expression 'we' is used. Further the plaintiff had purported to sign for M/s. Raghunath Dass Mulkraj. But at the same time he signed the notice as the proprietor of the concern "Raghunath Dass Mulkraj". That is a clear indication of the fact that "Raghunath Dass Mulkraj" is a proprietary concern and the plaintiff is its proprietor. Whatever doubts that might have been possibly created in the mind of the recipient of that notice, after going through the body of the notice as to the identity of the would-be plaintiff, the same would have been resolved after going through the notice as a whole. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Government and the public officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations. The purpose of law is advancement of justice. The provisions in Section 80, Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as boobytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons. In this case we are concerned with a narrow question. Has the person mentioned in the notice as plaintiff brought the present suit or is he someone else? This question has to be decided by reading the notice as a whole in a reasonable manner. 9. In Dhian Singh Sobha Singh v. Union of India, [1958]1SCR781 this Court observed that while the terms of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code must ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case falls within the rule laid down by this Court in [1962]1SCR560 . We are not persuaded that it is so. In S. N. Dutt's case a notice was sent by a lawyer on behalf of the concern known as S. N. Dutt & Co. The notice in question did not indicate either specifically of by necessary implication that the concern in question is a proprietary concern and S. N. Dutt was its sole proprietor. Referring to that notice, this Court observed "The prima facie impression from reading the notices would be that Messrs. S. N. Dutt & Co. was some kind of partnership firm and notices were being given in the name of that partnership firm. It cannot therefore be said, on a comparison of the notices in this case with the plaint that there is identity o....