"تقرير لجنة التحقيق في بارودا، ١٨٧٤" [ظ‎‎٧‎٤] (٥٠٢/١٥٣)

2
3 The Commission observes that the main facts in this case are admitted
on both sides. The complainant no donbt regarded the transaction as concluded,
but so long; as the orders for the price of the jewels were not delivered to him
and actually cashed, the Durbar considered that such was not the case _
The Maharaja protests that he was deceived as to the worth ot the jewels,
and was and is willing to pay their real value.
No doubt the complainant has good ground for dissatisfaction at the non-
settlement of his claim, and were both parties to the _ contract British subjects,
he could probably sue His Highness successfully m a Civil court, but such
delays and disputes are of common occurrence on occasions of the purchase of
jewels of large value by Native Chiefs, and are well known to be so by the deal
ers in such articles.
Bearing this in mind, and that very extrav agant values are put on their
jewels under such circumstances by Native jewellers, the Commission conceives
that it would not be justified to take on itself the task of attempting a settlement
of this case, for which a fair valuation of the jewels by well qualified and impar
tial arbitrators would be absolutely essential, and it has therefore suggested that
the jewels be forwarded to Bombay with proper precautions, through the Resi
dent, for this purpose, and that His Highness agree to pay the full amount that
may be so fixed on them, or to return the jewels if the complainant decline to
receive the same, a reasonable amount being in either case paid to the latter as
compensation for the delay that has occurred in the adjustment of his claim.
The Maharaja having intimated his full readiness to accept and abide by
this mode of settlement, the further disposal of the matter has been left in the
Resident's hands.
The Commission thinks that the two first modes of settlement admitted
by complainant to have been proposed by the Dewan, but declined by the former,
were not unreasonable, and that it is to be regretted that he did not accept
them.
II. Case No. 3. Complainant sent certain jewels shortly before the pre
sent Maharaja's marriage nearly 3 years ago, to the Baroda firm of Bhaichand
Vardhaman, which had asked him and others to supply some for sale on the
occasion to His Highness. The jewels were taken to Baroda by his son, and
were of the value of about 17 lacs of Rupees. About 12 lacs worth were select
ed by the Maharaja himself, and their purchase by the Jamdar Khana Kamdar
was ordered by His Highness. The price fixed on them was Rs. 11,91,047 and
complainant's son requested that the amount might be paid to Gopalrao Myral,
and that the receipt of Bhaichand's firm for it might be accepted on complainant's
behalf. Gopalrao Myral was requested to receive the amount, and, after adjust
ing a debt of Rs. 1,89,834 due to him by complainant in connection with this
transaction, to pay the balance over to Bhaichand's firm, which was instructed
to remit the same to complainant at Ahmedabad. The orders for the payment
of the amount were drawn out and signed by the Maharaja, but fell into the
hands of Vasant Rambhao, the manager of the State Bank, who cashed them and
credited the amounts so realised in that Bank. Hearing this, complainant
wrote to Bhaichand, who, on speaking to the Maharaja on the subject, was refer
red by His Highness to this Vasant Rambhao, and the latter took a receipt, dated
1st July 1871, for the full amount of complainant's claim from the said Bhai
chand s firm. Eight days later, Vasant Rambhao paid over Rs. 6,62,259 to (xo-
palrao Myral, in part of the full amount due, and said that the balance should be
paid up afterwards.
Gopalrao Myral retained from this the sum due to him, and paid over the
i emainder to Bhaichand s firm, as requested by complainant, of which he was
duly informed by the said firm. Complainant then begged Bhaichand to get the
balance and remit it, but on his applying to Vasant Rambhao for it, he refused
to pay it. The amount paid to Bhaichand is still in his hands. Complainant
has made no application to the Maharaja in the case.