1962 (4) TMI 120 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Requirement of a fresh notice under Section 80 after the withdrawal of the initial suit.
3. Variance between the plaint and the notice under Section 80.
4. Compliance with Section 80 requirements.
5. Bar under Section 40 of the Punjab Excise Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is mandatory. It was noted that the appellant's notice did not meet the requirements of Section 80, which mandates that the notice should state the cause of action and the relief claimed. The Court found that the notice lacked sufficient details to inform the government of the nature and basis of the claim and the relief sought. The notice did not provide specific sums claimed under each head, making it impossible for the government to consider settling the claim.

2. Requirement of a fresh notice under Section 80 after the withdrawal of the initial suit:
The Court dismissed the objection that a fresh notice under Section 80 was required after the withdrawal of the initial suit. The Court held that if the original notice satisfied the requirements of Section 80, the fact that an initial suit was filed and then withdrawn did not exhaust or extinguish the validity of the notice.

3. Variance between the plaint and the notice under Section 80:
The Court found a substantial variance between the plaint and the notice. The notice claimed a total of Rs. 74,935/8/3 without detailing how this amount was computed or relating it to specific items of claim. In contrast, the plaint detailed several heads of claims, amounting to Rs. 1,09,653/11/-, but confined the claim to Rs. 74,935/8/3. The Court noted that there was no means of identifying the claim in the plaint with that in the notice, leading to a complete variance between the two.

4. Compliance with Section 80 requirements:
The Court reiterated that Section 80 requires the notice to state the cause of action and the relief claimed. The notice should provide sufficient details to enable the government to consider the claim and decide whether to settle it. The Court found that the notice in this case failed to meet these requirements, as it did not provide specific amounts claimed under each head, nor did it give the government an opportunity to settle the claim.

5. Bar under Section 40 of the Punjab Excise Act:
The Court noted that the claim for the refund of Rs. 21,460/- was barred under Section 40 of the Punjab Excise Act, which states that when a license is canceled or suspended, the holder is not entitled to any compensation or refund of any fee paid or deposit made. This statutory provision further invalidated the appellant's claim for a refund of the deposit.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the entire claim in the suit must fail due to the combined effect of non-compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and the bar under Section 40 of the Punjab Excise Act. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.