Bailment refers to a legal arrangement in which the real owner of an asset or individual property is transferred from one person to the next, who will get the item's ownership but not the entire possession. In circumstances when bailment arises from an agreement, the agreement act is usually in charge; nonetheless, it isn't correct to claim that bailment cannot occur without an enforceable agreement. Bailment is only regulated by the Contract Act when it arises from a contract as Possessions in the Common Law. There can be a bond between a bailer and a bailee even if no binding agreement exists.

Consent isn't required for an agreement to be reached. The most obvious manifestation of a "bailment is ownership". A major criterion of bailment is the presence of a substantial agreement, which implies that items will be returned after the design is complete. Despite the fact that he and the true owner may not have a current agreement, the locater of missing items is referred to as bailee. Bailment is, for the most part, an authoritative relationship that may be established by anybody.

Introduction
Bailment refers to a legal arrangement in which the real owner of an asset or individual property is transferred from one person to the next, who will get the item's ownership but not the entire possession. In circumstances when bailment arises from an agreement, the agreement act is usually in charge; nonetheless, it isn't correct to claim that bailment cannot occur without an enforceable agreement. Bailment is only regulated by the Contract Act when it arises from a contract as Possessions in the Common Law. There can be a bond between a bailer and a bailee even if no binding agreement exists.

Consent isn't required for an agreement to be reached. The most obvious manifestation of a "bailment is ownership". A major criterion of bailment is the presence of a substantial agreement, which implies that items will be returned after the design is complete. Despite the fact that he and the true owner may not have a current agreement, the locater of missing items is referred to as bailee. Bailment is, for the most part, an authoritative relationship that may be established by anybody.

This what this case analysis in the landmark case of State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahommed, where the Supreme Court held that the State is on the same footing as a Bailee in relation to the items confiscated by the traditional experts. If such items are abandoned before the issue is finally decided and the experts are unable to return a comparable item when the last request is made, the state was supposed to assume responsibility for the same.

Facts Of The Case
2 vehicles belonging to Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam (Haji Memon), In a smuggling case, Gujarat State police authorities apprehended Ayub Iqbal and Company, who operated as a fish exporter in the state of Junagadh (State of Gujarat). The respondent had failed to pay import tariffs on the trucks, which were then utilized to smuggle items into the state, some of which were illicit products. From 1947 until October 1951, the cars were under the jurisdiction of the government.

Haji Memon requested the return of the vehicles after the court hearing for the Haji Memon case, but was later informed that they had been disposed of under an order of magistrate passed under S.523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and that the trucks had been destroyed due to corrosion and environmental changes, leaving only the skeleton of the vehicle. The responder took his case to his native state's Member of State.

Meanwhile, the United States of Saurashtra annexed the State of Junagadh, which was afterwards renamed the State of Saurashtra. The previous state of Bombay was merged with the state of Saurashtra after that. Following the partition, the state of Bombay was annexed by Gujarat. Meanwhile, the appeal was directed to the Saurashtra Revenue Tribunal, which was constituted by the state and was the proper authority to handle such issues.

Following that, Haji Memon launched a lawsuit against the authorities, seeking compensation for the vehicles' damage. As the plaintiff maintains that it was the bailee's responsibility to look after the goods, the defendant claims that it was their responsibility to seize the truck and that they were not bound by the contract. As a result, there is no bailment contract.
The automobiles in question were taken by the government, according to both the trial court and the high court.

The vehicles were disposed of between 1947 and October 1951, and they were left unattended in an open place. They've been taken by a federal agency. The State Government was found to be negligent in the asserted conditions.

Issue of the case:

• whether there is implied bailer-bailee relation even when there is no Enforceable contract?
• whether authority's duty to take reasonable care of the good (seized trucks) as a bailee?
• Whether the state is liable to compensate or not?[1]

Analysis Of The Case
In the following case of hazi Memon vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) various question arose before the courts as the both sides had their valid contentions, The respondent's argument was that, although the seizure was legal and within the authority of the statute, the State Government was in the position of a bailee from the moment the goods were taken until the appeal was decided, and was therefore obligated to take appropriate care of the cars.

Appellant- This being really no bailment, then no such bailment can be drawn, since, according to s. 148 of the Contract Act, a bailment may only arise from a contract between the parties.

Regardless of whether you are a government employee or not, everyone should follow the same regulations. According to the Indian Constitution, if someone is fulfilling a contract (it might be a bailment), everyone shall meet the same or the contract's criteria.Because the vehicles were seized with authority and sold in accordance with a court order, the State Government cannot be held liable for their disposal by public auction.

However, there was an implied statutory responsibility to take reasonable care of the confiscated goods between their seizure and the sale. This is because the confiscation order was not final and was susceptible to an appeal and amendment, both of which the State was aware of. The state also knew that if the decision was overturned, the property would have to be given to the owner in the same condition as when it was seized, with the exception of natural depreciation. Despite this obvious stance, the state permitted its police officials to have trucks disposed of as unclaimed property while the appeal was underway.

"With a legal obligation to keep the property intact and a legal obligation to take reasonable care of it so that the Government can return it in the same condition in which it was seized (apart from natural depreciation), the State Government's position was that of a bailee until the order became final." "Bailment is dealt with by the Contract Act solely in circumstances where it originates from a contract, but it is not true to state that there cannot be a bailment without an enforceable contract," the State argues.

In reality, even if there is no contract to that effect, a finder of things is required by law to take reasonable care of the commodities until they are returned to the owner, so that his rights and responsibilities are comparable to those of a bailee. [1]Similarly, as bailee, the State was required by the law to take reasonable care of the vehicles. As a result, the State would be responsible for the truck's worth.

The Indian Contract Act,1872 governs bailment, and Lawful remuneration and legally bound parties are essential components of a valid contract. The bailor turns over the commodities to the bailee in a normal bailment, resulting in an orally bound bailment contract. The commodities were taken by the government authorities in the Haji Memon case, which failed to follow any legal procedures that are necessary to legally bind two parties in a contract.

The specified items (vehicles) were, however, under the custody of the government, which may be considered a bailee. As a consequence, it was up to the bailee to take care of the items.. As a result, Hazi Memon received compensation.

In certain cases, a finder of good might also be deemed a bailee, as stated above. When the owner of a piece of property is located and demanded, the finder is required to return it. As a result, once the State Government determined that the seizure and confiscation were unsustainable, it was obligated to release the car. As a result, there is a legal responsibility to protect the property and to take appropriate care of it.

Judgment
J. Shelat was the one who gave the Court's decision.

Held:
"There being thus a legal obligation to preserve the property intact, as well as the obligation to take reasonable care of it so that the Government can return it in the same condition in which it was seized (let aside natural depreciation), the State Government's position until the order became final was that of bailee," it was held.

"The Contract Act only applies to bailment when it emerges from a contract, but it is incorrect to claim that a bailment cannot exist without an enforceable contract."

Bailment and the relationship of a bailee in respect of specified property might therefore exist without the existence of an enforceable contract.

Similarly, as bailee, the State was required by law in Pari Materia to take appropriate care of vehicles. As a result, the state would be responsible for the truck's worth.

The Indian Contract Act,1872 governs bailment, and Lawful remuneration and legally bound parties are essential components of a valid contract. The bailor turns over the commodities to the bailee in a normal bailment, resulting in an orally bound bailment contract. The commodities were taken by the government authorities in the Haji Memon case, which failed to follow any legal procedures that are necessary to legally bind two parties in a contract.

The specified items (vehicles) were, however, under the custody of the government, which may be considered a bailee. As a result, it was the bailee's responsibility to look after the goods. As a result, Hazi Memon received compensation.[1]

Conclusion
On the facts of this case, the State Government most likely confiscated the automobiles in accordance with the Customs Act's authority. However, the right to take and confiscate was conditional on the commission of a customs offense or the suspicion of such an offense. The Customs Officer's order was not definitive since it could be appealed, and if the appellate authority determined that there was no sound reason for the use of that power, "the property could no longer be detained and had to be restored to the owner under the Act." [1]

That being the case, and the property being liable to be returned, there was not only a statutory obligation to return, but also an implied obligation to keep the property intact until the confiscation order became final, and to take such care of it as a reasonable person in similar circumstances would.

The State Government was obligated to restore the automobiles once it was determined that the seizure and confiscation were not sustainable, just as a finder of property must return it when its owner is identified and requests it. As a result of the legal requirement to keep the property intact and to take reasonable care of it so that the Government may return it in the same state in which it was seized, the State Government would be in the position of a bailee until the order became final

End-Notes:

• https://www.lawyerservices.in/State-of-Bombay-Now-Gujarat-Versus-Memon-Mahomed-Haji-Hasam-1967-05-05
• https://racolblegal.com/state-of-gujarat-v-haji-memon-1967/
• https://www.studocu.com/in/document/op-jindal-global-university/contract-law/state-of-bombay-v-memon-mahomed/22329653