Back
High Court Of Calcutta
CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, SUSANTA CHATTERJI
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
RATAN LALL - Respondent
. 1 Of 1983
Decided On : 06/17/1987
INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - SECTION 80 - FORUM FOR SUITS - SECTION 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AND SECTION 18 OF THE PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1882 - WHETHER REPEALED BY IMPLICATION - HELD, YES - SUITS FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST RAILWAYS - FORUMS FOR INSTITUTION SOLELY DETERMINED BY SECTION 80 OF THE INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT, 1890.
Fact of the Case:
The issue before the court was whether the forum for a suit contemplated by S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 should be determined in terms of the said Section and whether S. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 should be deemed to be no longer applicable to such suits under S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 impliedly repealed Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 in respect of suits for compensation against the Railways. The court held that Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 exhaustively mentioned the courts in which the suits for compensation against the Railways may be instituted.
Issues: Whether the forum for a suit contemplated by S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act can still be determined on application of the provisions of S. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any of the clauses there of or such forum is to be determined solely in the manner prescribed by S. 80 itself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 was a special provision applicable only to suits for compensation against the Railways. The court held that the new Section 80 of the Railways Act not only mentioned the class of suits covered by the said provision but also indicated which of the Railway Administrations are to be made defendant in such suits. Thirdly, Section 80 mentioned the places where the said suits may be instituted. The court held that the use of the expression 'may be instituted' in Section 80 of the Railways Act was equivalent to 'shall be instituted'. The court held that Section 80 conferred right to institute suits for compensation against the Railways for breach of their obligations for carrying passengers, animals or goods specified in Chapter-VII of the Indian Railways Act. The court held that both, the obligation on the part of the Railways and the right of the consignor and the consignee to institute suits, are now statutory in their nature. The court held that the clear intendment of the Legislature was that it would be obligatory for the plaintiffs to institute suits only in the courts mentioned in Section 80 of the Railways Act for enforcement of the claims for compensation against the Railways.
Final Decision: The court held that the forum (s) for the suits mentioned in S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 are to be determined solely by the provisions of the said Section of the Indian Railways Act 1890, and S. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. 1908 and S. 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, are no longer applicable to the suits mentioned in S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.
( 1 ) BY an order dated 18th May, 1983, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Sanyal, JJ. (as their Lordships then were) referred to the Full Bench a group of Revisional Applications under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; for resolving the conflict in judicial views on the question whether or not the forum for a suit contemplated by the present S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (Which, with effect from 1st January, 1962, was substituted by Indian Railways (Amendment) Act 1961) should be determined in terms of the said Section and whether S. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 should be deemed to be no longer applicable to such suits under S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The learned referring Judges had pointed out that the two decisions of this Court respectively in the cases of Oghadmal Choudhury v. Union of India, 1974 0 Callj 420 and in the unreported case of Jagannath Chetram v. Union of India disposed of on April 18, 1979. had taken the view that S. 20 of the Code shall have no application for determination of the forum of a suit contemplated by S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act. But another Division Bench in the case of Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1979) 2 Cal LJ had taken a contrary view. The learned Judges had formulated the following question :"whether the forum for a suit contemplated by S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act can still be determined on application of the provisions of S. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any of the clauses there of or such forum is to be determined solely in the manner prescribed by S. 80 itself. "
( 2 ) THE said references were registered as Full Bench Reference No. 1 of 1983.
( 3 ) MYSELF sitting with my learned brother, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. C. Sengupta, by an order dated 20th November, 1986 had referred to the Full Bench a Revisional Application filed by the Union of India represented by the General Manager Eastern Railway against the judgement and decree dated 3rd July, 1986, passed by the learned Judge 2nd Bench, Court of Small Causes Calcutta, in Suit No. 3881 of 1986, filed against it by the plaintiff opposite party, Rakesh Kumar Misra. The points involved in the said Revisional Application were almost similar to those in the aforesaid Full Bench Reference No. 1 of 1983, save and except that by relying upon the provisions of S. 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the said suit was instituted in the Presidency Small Cause Court. Calcutta.
( 4 ) THE suits out of which these Revisional Applications arise had been filed with the averments in the respective plaints either to the effect that the defendant, Railway Administration, had its headquarters within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court or that the cause of action, wholly or in part, had been within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. It is not disputed that the suits in question were for recovery of compensation against the Union of India representing a Railway Administration/administrations for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods within the meaning of S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.
( 5 ) IN course of the hearing of this Full Bench Reference, we slightly re-formulated the point which requires decision by the Full Bench :-"whether the forums for classes of suits mentioned in S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 are to be solely determined by the said S. 80 of the Act itself and whether S. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or S. 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 are no longer applicable to the said classes of suits mentioned by S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act. "
( 6 ) SECTION 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961) had, inter alia, substituted the previous S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, by the present provision. The present S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act is as follows :-"a suit for compensation for
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
