Back
Karnataka High Court
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-29-03
M.F.A. : 1896 of 1997
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 - Section 23 - Appeal - referred to Larger Bench - question referred - whether the Tribunal established under special law for specific purpose like the Railway Claims Tribunal Act etc. are Courts sub-ordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code? No. Revision cannot be maintained against the orders passed by these Tribunals.
[N. K. Jain, CJ., T. S. Thakur, V. G. Sabhahit, Mohan Shantanagoudar & H. G. Ramesh, JJ.] - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) established under the Motor Vehicle Act, the Education Appellate Tribunal (EAT) established under. KPEI (D&C) Act, 1975, now the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) established under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 are not Courts subordinate to High Court for the purpose of Section 115 CPC. Wherever special statute confers or Clothes any authority with powers of a Civil Court for decision of civil disputes in general, the orders passed by such authorities would be revisable in the absence of any provision for appeal against the same. What is important is that the authority exercising the power must be constituted as a Civil Court for decision of civil disputes in general and not for decision of only special category of civil disputes. The Tribunals in the instant case are meant to deal with only specific class of cases arising out of special enactments. They do not and cannot exercise powers vested in a Civil Court for decision of civil disputes in general within the meaning of Section 9 of the CPC. Such Tribunals cannot therefore be termed as Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC.
Cases Referred : AIR 1985 KAR. 208; AIR 1964 All 504; ILR 2000 KAR 170; AIR 1980 Pat 49; AIR 1965 SC 1595; AIR 2002 SC 2308; AIR 1985 KAR 208; AIR 1983 KAR 164; ILR 1998 Kar 3733; AIR 1979 SC 855; 1983 ACJ 123; AIR 1985 Kant 208; AIR 1980 Pat 49; AIR 1977 SC 282; AIR 1977 SC 1555; AIR 2002 SC 2308; (2003) 3 SCC 524; AIR 1980 SC 892; AIR 1970 SC 1; AIR 1977 SC 282; 1913 AC 546; AIR 1974 KAR 109; ILR 2000 KAR. 170; ILR 1998 KAR. 3748; ILR 2003 KAR. 3008; 1987 (1) SCC 124; 1997 (3) SCC 261; AIR 1961 SC 1669; AIR 1963 SC 874; AIR 1965 SC 1595; AIR 1983 KAR 164; 1987 (1) SCC 124; 1997 (3) SCC 261; AIR 1985 KAR 208; 1993 ACJ 123; AIR 1961 SC 1669; AIR 1965 SC 1595; AIR 1977 SC 282; AIR 1977 SC 1555; 1996 AIR SCW 1464.
Overruled:
WA No. 1101-03/1987; ILR 2000 Kar 170.
Whether revision maintainable against the order of the Tribunals like Railway Claims Tribunal?
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Section 115, Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Appeal referred to Larger Bench - question referred - whether the Tribunal established under special law for specific purpose like the Railway Claims Tribunal Act etc. are Courts sub-ordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code? No. A revision cannot be maintained against the orders passed by these Tribunals.
[N. K. Jain, CJ, T. S. Thakur, V. G. Sabhahit, Mohan Shantanagoudar & H. G. Ramesh, JJ.] - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) established under the Motor Vehicle Act, the Education Appellate Tribunal (EAT) established under. KPEI (D&C) Act, 1975, now the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) established under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 are not Courts subordinate to High Court for the purpose of Section 115 CPC. Wherever special statute confers or Clothes any authority with powers of a Civil Court for decision of civil disputes in general, the orders passed by such authorities would be revisable in the absence of any provision for appeal against the same. What is important is that the authority exercising the power must be constituted as a Civil Court for decision of civil disputes in general and not for decision of only special category of civil disputes. The tribunals in the instant case are meant to deal with only specific class of cases arising out of special enactments. They do not and cannot exercise powers vested in a Civil Court for decision of civil disputes in general within the meaning of Section 9 of the CPC. Such tribunals cannot therefore be termed as Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC.
Cases Referred : AIR 1985 Kar. 208; AIR 1964 Allahabad 504; ILR 2000 Kar 170; AIR 1980 Patna 49; AIR 1965 SC 1595; AIR 2002 SC 2308; AIR 1985 Kar 208; AIR 1983 Kar 164; ILR 1998 Kar 3733; AIR 1979 SC 855; 1983 ACJ 123; AIR 1985 Kant 208; AIR 1980 Patna 49; AIR 1977 SC 282; AIR 1977 SC 1555; AIR 2002 SC 2308; (2003) 3 SCC 524; AIR 1980 SC 892; AIR 1970 SC 1; AIR 1977 SC 282; 1913 AC 546; AIR 1974 Kar 109; ILR 2000 Kar. 170; ILR 1998 Kar. 3748; ILR 2003 Kar. 3008; 1987 (1) SCC 124; 1997 (3) SCC 261; AIR 1961 SC 1669; AIR 1963 SC 874; AIR 1965 SC 1595; AIR 1983 Kar 164; 1987 (1) SCC 124; 1997 (3) SCC 261; AIR 1985 Kar 208; 1993 ACJ 123; AIR 1961 SC 1669; AIR 1965 SC 1595; AIR 1977 SC 282; AIR 1977 SC 1555; 1996 AIR SCW 1464.
Overruled: Writ Appeals No. 1101-03/1987; ILR 2000 Kar 170.
( 1 ) IN view of the order dated 29-7-2003, passed by the Chief Justice, this Reference was placed before us on 14-8-2003. The Division Bench vide order dated 7-7-2003 had referred these matters to the Full Bench regarding the maintainability of the revision petition in the context of the provisions made in the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the mv Act), Karnataka Private Educational In stitutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (now Karnataka Education Act, 1983) (hereinafter called the Education Act) and the railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the RCT Act) for consideration afresh in view of the two earlier decisions rendered, one by Full Bench in Excellent education Society v. Shahida Begaum (Writ appeals Nos. 1101/03/1987) pertaining to education Appellate Tribunal as the order is amenable to Sec. 115, C. P. C. , disposed of on 30-5-1989 and the other decision of the division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Noreen r. Srikantaiah v. Dashrath Ramaiah, AIR 1985 Kant 208 wherein the question regarding maintainability of revision petition has not been examined. The decision passed by the single Judge/division Bench held that the Tribunal is not a Court and other decisions are held per incuriam. C. R. P. 3487/ 98, 3488 and 3501 of 1998 have been referred to a larger Bench on 18-1-1999 regarding maintainability of the revision petitions. It is also to be seen that in C. R. P. 1378/99 and connected matters pertaining to Education matter, the decision of Full bench dated 30-5-1989 has been followed and the cases were disposed of on 25-2-2002. The matters were placed before the three Judges Bench on 29-7-2003 as per the direction of the Chief Justice. The Full bench observed that it could not sit in judgment on the decision of a co-ordinate Full bench and observed that it would be appropriate that the matters are considered by the Larger Bench of five Judges,
( 2 ) THE question referred is :"are Tribunals established under the motor Vehicles Act, the Karnataka Private educational (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 now the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, courts subordinate to the High Court for purpose of Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure?"
( 3 ) WE shall now consider the argument of the learned counsel in their respective cases, that the Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court and a revision lies.
( 4 ) SRI Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in M. F. A. No. 1869/1997 pertaining to Railway Act, submits that earlier Civil Court or a Claims commissioner was competent to consider such cases before the establishment of the railway Claims Tribunal. He submits that to reduce the burden of cases, the Railways claims Tribunal was constituted and after the establishment of the Tribunal, all the cases are being dealt with by it. In view of sec. 23 (2) of the RCT Act, no appeal lies against the interlocutory orders. He submits that when no appeal is maintainable, automatically a revision is maintainable as provided under Section 115 of CPC. He relied on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad high Court in Bal Gopal Das v. Mohan singh, AIR 1964 All 504.
( 5 ) SRI Srinivas Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP 1758/2000 and connected matters pertaining to Education Act, submits that the Educational Tribunal Act is a new and distinct act, and earlier to the establishment of the tribunal, the power was exercised by a District Court and as such a revision lies as per Section 115 of CPC. He relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court in General Manager, KSRTC, Central Offices v. Smt. Housamathi Shidramappa Saladagi, ilr 2000 Kant 170 and the decision of Patna high Court in Anirudh Prasad Ambasta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 Patna 49.
( 6 ) SRI Sowri Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in C. R. P. Nos. 940/1998 and 751 /1998 pertaining to M. V. Act, submits that the Tribunal could not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
