Dhian Singh Sobha Singh & Another vs The Union Of India on 29 October, 1957
If this rule is applied to the instant case we have no doubt that the plaintiff will not get anything if he were to sell the negatives to a solvent buyer. As observed earlier there is no evidence whatsoever of any person having made any offer to purchase the negatives. In the case of a chattel which is not a profit earning chattel or which has ceased to be a profit earning chattel the plaintiff would be entitled to have damages or compensation for loss in the form of its monetary equivalent. The wrong doer is held responsible for his tortious conduct by applying as far as possible the general principle of restitutio in integrum and difficulties always arise in defining the proprietary loss which has to be compensated and the date on which the loss is to be evaluated in terms of money. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dhian Singh v. Union of India, , which contains a detailed discussion of the law relating to the ascertainment and the award of damages for the "conversion" and "detinue". That decision dealt with a case of wrongful detention of two motor trucks and it was held that the injured party was entitled to the value of the trucks as on the date of the judgment and also damages at a particular rate per day during the period when the injured party was prevented from making use of the trucks by hiring out and earning income. There it was held that if a bailee (which would include a pledgee) refuses to deliver the chattel back on demand by the bailor the latter will be entitled at his election to pursue his remedy against the bailee for wrongful detention of his goods and recover either the goods in specie or its value on the date of the judgment. The difficulty arises only where the chattel has no saleable value whatsoever and its earning capacity to the owner is nil. In such a case the damage sustained by the owner is virtually nil and if the wrong doer escapes without performing his contractual obligation of due delivery of the chattel it is because the chattel has no value. In this respect the rule is the same whether the claim arises out of a contract or tort and the best that the Court can do is to place the party who has sustained the injury in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which compensation or reparation is awarded.