Back
Bombay High Court
JAMDAR,PAUNIKAR
Oriental Coal Co.Ltd., Calcutta - Appellant
Versus
Mohanlal Kisanlal - Respondent
Decided On : 08/04/1983
COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1973 - SECTIONS 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 - COAL MINES (TAKING OVER OF MANAGEMENT) ACT, 1973 - SECTIONS 4, 7 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 1, RULE 10 - ORDER 30, RULE 1, RULE 10 - LIABILITY OF OWNER OF COAL MINE FOR CLAIMS ARISING BEFORE APPOINTED DAY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - PREFERENCE OF CLAIM BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF PAYMENTS - EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PREFER CLAIM - ADMISSIBILITY OF SUIT AGAINST OWNER OF COAL MINE - AWARD OF INTEREST - SUIT FILED BY SOLE PROPRIETOR IN TRADE NAME - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, M/s. Oriental Coal Company Ltd., was the owner of Kamptee Colliery. The respondents supplied goods on credit to the appellant. The respondents preferred claims to the Commissioner of Payments under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, but their claims were rejected. The respondents then filed suits in the Civil Court for recovering the amount due to them along with interest. The appellant contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and that the respondents were not entitled to prefer claims before the Commissioner of Payments and simultaneously to file suits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits against the owner of the nationalised coal mine in respect of claims arising before the appointed day. The Court further held that the respondents were entitled to simultaneously make a claim to the Commissioner and to file a suit to recover the amount due to them. The Court also held that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the amount due to the respondents at the rate agreed upon.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits against the owner of the nationalised coal mine in respect of claims arising before the appointed day? 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to simultaneously make a claim to the Commissioner and to file a suit to recover the amount due to them? 3. Whether the appellant was liable to pay interest on the amount due to the respondents at the rate agreed upon? 4. Whether the suit filed by the sole proprietor in the trade name was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, do not impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and adjudicate upon a claim against the owner of the coal mine in respect of the liability incurred before the appointed day. 2. The scheme envisaged by Chapter VI of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, relates only to the disbursement of compensation payable to the owner as a result of nationalisation of the coal mine. The claimant can ignore the disbursement proceedings and may choose to follow his ordinary remedy and recover the amount from the property which continues to vest in the owner of the coal mine. 3. The agreement to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding balance if the bill remained uncleared for 15 days was proved by the respondents and not rebutted by the appellant. 4. Filing of a suit by the sole proprietor in the trade name is not fatal. It would only mean that the suit is instituted in the name of a wrong person within the meaning of O.1, R.10 and that such a mistake can be allowed to be amended at any stage of the proceeding.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant.
JAMDAR, J. :- Appellant M/s. Oriental Coal Company Ltd. has preferred these two appeals being aggrieved by the two decrees passed in favour of the respective respondent, but as the main question in these two appeals relates to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. M/s. Oriental Coal Company Ltd. was the owner of Kamptee Colliery. The respondents supplied goods on credit to the appellant-Company. The respondent in First Appeal No. 33 of 1980 M/s. Mohanlal Kisanlal, a registered partnership firm, supplied bamboos (Ballis) worth Rs. 62,294-20 under Bill Nos. E-2, E-3 and E-4 dated 29-1-1973. The appellant paid Rs. 2,293-40 towards Bill No. E-3 and gave two cheques of Rs. 5,000/-each to M/s. Mohanlal Kisanlal on 30th Jan., 1973. Both these cheques were dishonoured in view of the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973, which, by virtue of S.1 (2), was deemed to have come into force on 30th Jan., 1973. The respondent M/s. Mohanlal Kisanlal, therefore, informed the appellant about dishonour of the cheques and also requested the Custodian of the Kamptee Coal Field to issue new cheques. The coal mines authorities, however, expressed their inability to make the payment and directed the respondent to approach the Commissioner of Payments appointed under Section 17 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, which came into force with effect from 1st May, 1973. The respondent thereafter preferred a claim to the Commissioner of Payments in November, 1974, but as nothing was heard from the said authority, the respondent-firm addressed a notice to the appellant on 27-7-1975, calling upon the appellant to pay the amount along with interest, and as the appellant failed to comply, the respondent-firm filed Special Civil Suit No. 289 of 1975 for recovering Rs. 60,000/- being the balance amount of the bills remaining unpaid along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on Rupees 60,000/- from 29-1-1973 to 31-10-1975, amounting to Rs. 19,800/-. Almost simultaneously, the respondent preferred a claim to the Commissioner of Payments, as contemplated by S.20 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973.
3. M/s. Shivkumar Gupta, the respondent in First Appeal No. 34 of 1980, is a proprietary concern, of which Shivkumar Gupta is the proprietor. The said respondent supplied Girders, plates, angles, etc., worth Rs. 76,532-05 under the bills dated 3-12-1972, 20-12-1972, 25-12-1972 and 27-1-1973 to the appellant on credit.
This respondent also followed the same procedure as was followed by M/s. Mohanlal Kisanlal for the purpose of recovering the amount due to him. He also issued notice to the appellant on 27-7-1975 and before filing Special Civil Suit No 291 of 1975, preferred his claim to the Commissioner of Payments on 1-11-1975, for recovering Rs. 76,532-05 as the amount of the bills along with Rs. 25,245/- as interest for the period from 27-1-1973 to 31-10-1975 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
4. In both these suits, the appellant raised various contentions and even denied that the respondents had supplied goods as claimed by them. The appellant also denied that there was an agreement to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent if the amount of the bill was not cleared within 15 days, and contended that the Central Government and the Western Coal Field Ltd. were necessary parties to the suit. The appellant also contended that the respondents were not entitled to prefer claims before the Commissioner of Payments and simultaneously to file suits. The appellant further contended that in view of S.28 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was ousted.
5. The learned trial Judge held that the respondents did supply goods as stated by them and that there was an agreement to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the out
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
