Back
1937 Supreme(SC) 65
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD ALNESS, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, AND SIR SHADI LAL.
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : July. 26. 1937.
Solicitors for appellants :Sanderson, Lee & Co. Solicitors for respondents: T. L. Wilson & Co.
A statutory body acting on its own land and in its own interest does not divest itself of its statutory capacity. Limitation periods for acts "purporting or professing" to be done in pursuance of a statute apply even if the act is not strictly a statutory duty.
Headnote:(A) Port Act - Section 142 - Limitation period for suits against statutory bodies for acts done, purporting or professing to be done, in pursuance of the Act - Suit brought after three months - Barred by limitation.
(B) Statutory Capacity - A statutory body performing work on its own land, in its own interest, and using its own staff does not divest itself of its statutory capacity, even if the work is done under an agreement with another party for convenience. The protection of a limitation clause applies if the act was done in the body's statutory capacity.
(C) Interpretation of "Purporting or Professing" - The inclusion of the words "purporting or professing" in a limitation statute indicates that protection is extended to acts that claim or appear to be done in pursuance of the statute, even if they are not strictly within the statutory mandate.
Facts of the case:
A statutory port authority operated a railway crossing a road. A municipal corporation requested the installation of an additional suction pipe. To minimize interference with the railway, it was agreed that the port authority's staff would perform the work at the corporation's expense. During exploratory work, holes were made to locate existing pipes. Subsequent flooding occurred, and the corporation alleged that the port authority's negligence in leaving these holes open caused the damage. The suit was filed more than two years after the event, exceeding the three-month limitation period prescribed by the relevant Act for acts done in pursuance of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the port authority was acting in its statutory capacity, not as a private contractor. The work was performed on the authority's own land, in its own interest to protect its railway, and by its own employees. Therefore, the act fell within the scope of the limitation provision.
Issues: Whether the acts of the statutory body's employee in performing exploratory work were done "in pursuance of" the relevant Act, or whether the body was acting in a private capacity as a contractor, thereby making the suit subject to the three-month limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a statutory body does not lose its statutory character simply by entering into an agreement to perform work for another party's benefit if the work is done on its own property, in its own interest, and by its own staff. The phrase "purporting or professing to be done" in the limitation clause is pivotal, extending protection to acts that are performed in the body's statutory capacity, regardless of whether they strictly fulfill a statutory duty.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tort
-
negligence
- statutory limitation of actions
-
negligence
-
administrative law
-
statutory bodies
- statutory capacity and protection
-
statutory bodies
Judgement
Appeal (No. 71 of 1936) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (August 22, 1935) reversing a decree of the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction (June 8, 1934).
The question involved in this appeal was whether the appellants, the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, a statutory body constituted under the Calcutta Port Act (Ben. Act III. of 1890) were liable for the damage caused by the flooding of a pumping station belonging to the respondents, the Corporation of Calcutta, a statutory body constituted under the Calcutta Municipal Act (Ben. Act III. of 1923), and whether the claim, if any, was barred by time under s. 142 of the Calcutta Port Act, which requires a suit " for anything done, or purporting or professing to be done, in pursuance of this Act " to be brought within three months " from the day on which the cause of action in such suit shall have arisen/ The damage due to the flooding, which occurred in July, 1926, had been held to be Rs.44,612.9.4. The suit was filed on July 20, 1928. The respondents alleged that the flooding was due to the existence of two holes under the roof of a brick-lined tunnel carrying a suction pipe, which holes the appellants, during exploratory work in connection with the laying of an additional pipe for the respondents from the river Hugli under their (the appellants) railway to the respondents pumping station, had, it was alleged, negligently made or had allowed to remain open.
The main facts, which were not in dispute, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
Buckland J., who tried the action, held that there had been no negligence on the appellants part, and that in any event their employee in making the holes in question was acting on their behalf in pursuance of the Calcutta Port Act, and that the respondents’ claim was accordingly time-barred under s. 142 of that Act, and he dismissed the suit.
On appeal it was held (Derbyshire C.J. and Costello J. in separate concurring judgments) that the cause of the damage to the respondents pumping station was the appellants negligence in leaving the holes open, and that the appellants, in making the holes and leaving them open in order to ascertain and keep marked the line of the southern tunnel, were acting in pursuance of an agreement that they had come to with the respondents to lay another pipe from the river Hugli to the respondents pump house, and that that was no part of the ordinary functions of the Calcutta Port Commissioners, but was undertaken and done by them for their own convenience ; and that the appellants could not therefore be said to have made the holes as something done or purporting or professing to be done in pursuance of the Calcutta Port Act, and therefore the plea of limitation failed. The appeal is reported at ( 1935) I.
L. R. 63 C. 592.
1937. June 15, 17,18. Fergus Morton K.C., L. P. E. Pugh K.C. and T. B. W. Ramsay for the appellants. Dunne K.C. and J. M. Pringle for the respondents.
July 26. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD ALNESS. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature in Calcutta, dated August 22, 1935, which reversed the judgment and decree of the same Court in its original civil jurisdiction, dated June 8, 1934, and which decreed the respondents suit to recover from the appellants the sum of Rs.44,612.9.4 as damages for negligence.
The questions at issue are whether the appellants are liable for the damage caused by the flooding of the respondents pumping station, and whether their claim was barred by time in virtue of a provision in the Calcutta Port Act, 1890. The principal facts in the case are not in dispute, nor is the amount of damages due by the appellants, if liability is established. As their Lordships have formed a clear opinion that the respondents claim is statute barred, and, as their Lordships, in that view, deem it unnecessary to form or express an opinion on the question of negligence,
