Railway to take delivery of the goods lying at New Delhi station but when the respondent went there the goods were not traceable. Railway and he could only have a claim against the N. Again, on July 24, 1948, the respondent was asked to take delivery of the goods when only a small portion of the goods 76 were offered to him subject to the payment of Rs. Of the remaining seven, two, according to the learned counsel for the company, have obtained other jobs while one is said to be a member of Parliament.
On August 4,1949, the respondent filed a suit for Rs. The trial Supreme Court of India advocates found that the E. The company was prepared to reinstate, out of human considerations, the other four, though, it contends that legally and rightly so-it is not bound to reinstate any one of these fifteen workmen. 1,62,123 with interest as compensation for non-delivery of goods against the Dominion of India. It was pointed out that Henderson’s sentence was reduced to 2 month’s imprisonment and a small fine, the proceedings against the appellant had been going oil since 1945, the appellant had already served some three months’ imprisonment and that there was also a substantial fine.
The prayer for a further reduction of the sentence cannot be acceded to. On behalf of the appellant, certain circumstances were urged in mitigation of the sentence. Railway was guilty of negligence in handling the goods and decreed the suit for Rs. They may and should get gratuity 44 but at a lesser rate and on less generous terms and conditions. We are mindful that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu does not specifically preclude the land owners from entering into sale transactions during an ongoing acquisition proceeding.
While PW2 was examined in the lawyer Supreme Court of India, trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and observing demeanour of PW2 found her version identifying Chintoo Singh (A-5) trustworthy and we see no reason to take a different view. The appellant contended that there was no privity of contract between the respondent and the E. In these circumstances, once the land stood vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act, P. These four workmen whom the company is prepared to take back are Nitai Manji, Satya Charan Das, Mustafa Khan and Akil-ud-Din.
It reached New Delhi on February 3, 1948, and was unloaded on February 20, 1948, but no immediate information was sent to the respondent. The appellant had cheated the Government of Burma to the extent of something like 7 lakhs of rupees. Learned counsel for the company informs us that of these fifteen, only seven have been turning up to receive this payment while eight men never turned up. The fact that Henderson received a light punishment is not a relevant circumstance.
The argument is that since the retrenched workmen get statutory compensation on a very liberal scale they should not get gratuity at the rates fixed by the scheme for other workmen. Identification of the accused by the witness soon after the formers arrest is of course important because it lends assurance to the prosecution, in addition to corroboration of the evidence of the witnesses. Railway in Pakistan, and that the suit was barred by limitation. As noticed earlier, in the open court during the trial, Rubi Kumari (PW2) identified Chintoo Singh (A-5) and she has not identified him in the test identification parade conducted in the prison.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone while the sentence of ” ordinary ” fine may be maintained. Indeed he suggested that we should make suitable amendments in the gratuity scheme framed by the appellate tribunal in that behalf. The measure of punishment must be commensurate with the nature and the seriousness of the crime. On behalf of Chintoo Singh (A-5), it was contended that PW2s testimony is not reliable as she has not identified Chintoo Singh during the test identification parade and that PW2s identification of Chintoo Singh (A-5) in the court was not reliable.
This shows that these eight are not interested in the reinstatement. 1,067-8-0 as freight but the respondent refused to take delivery. On June 7, 1948, the respondent was asked by the E. 80,000, and on appeal the High Supreme Court of India advocates confirmed the decree. But the said principle has to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. But as long as the acquisition proceedings are not invalidated, any agreement creating or altering or extinguishing rights with respect to the land under acquisition will not be effective or efficacious against the State.
Ordinarily, courts do not give much credence to the identification made in the court for the first time; but the identification of the accused for the first time in court is permissible in law. Whether or not a twofold scheme of gratuity should be framed, one applicable to retrenched workmen and the other to the rest, is a matter which may, if necessary, be raised before the tribunal in a proper case. Velu did not bring down the acquisition proceedings qua his land, but on the contrary, by accepting compensation, had manifested his acceptance of the Award.
Besides it may be pertinent to observe that the question as presented in this form is not one of general importance, for in the present state of our economy which has received and is receiving the stimulus of national plans, our industries may not have to face the problem of retrenchment on an appreciable or extensive scale; but apart from this consideration we cannot entertain or decide the point raised by the learned Solicitor-General in an appeal under Art.
Velu and his vendees, namely the Respondents, could not have created and engineered rights or interests in the property against the State, except the right of seeking and receiving enhanced compensation. We do not think we can accede to this request. It is impossible to say that the sentence of imprisonment as reduced by the High advocates Supreme Court of India was in any way excessive.