Bombay High Court
The Food Corporation Of India vs The General Manager, Northern Railway ... on 28 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ623, AIR 1998 BOMBAY 233, (1999) 2 TAC 766, (1999) 1 ACJ 623, (1997) 4 ALLMR 548 (BOM)
Author: R.K. Batta
Bench: R.K. Batta
JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.
1. The Appellant had filed a Suit for recovery of damages against the respondents. The Suit was filed somewhere in the year 1982 and, after recording evidence on either side, learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao dismissed the Suit on 29th Dec. 1989. The Appellant challenged the dismissal of the Suit on various grounds including that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter with effect from 8-11-1989 in view of Section 24 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the said Act').
2. Learned Advocate Shri G.R. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, urged the same point relating to jurisdiction before me. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents.
3. Section 24 of the said Act lays down :--
"24. Transfer of pending cases.--
(1) Every suit, claim or other legal proceeding (other than an appeal) pending before any Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority immediately before the appointed day, being a suit, claim or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after the appointed day, within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal shall stand transferred on that day to the Claims Tribunal.
(2) Where any suit, claim or other legal proceeding stands transferred from any Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority to the Claims Tribunal under Sub-section (1), --
(a) the court, Claims Commissioner or other authority shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit, claim or other legal proceeding to the Claims Tribunal;
(b) the Claims Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, claim or other legal proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as an application from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Claims Tribunal deem fit."
Section 2(b) provides :--
"(b) "appointed day" means the date with effect from which the Claims Tribunal is established under Section 3."
Learned Advocate for the Appellant has placed before me Gazette Notification dated 5th Oct. 1989 published in the Gazette of India : Extraordinary (Part II -- Section 3(ii)) which provides :--
"S.O. 784 (B) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (54 of 1987), the Central Government hereby establishes the Railway Claims Tribunal with effect from 8th day of Nov. 1989, which shall be the 'appointed day' within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act."
Section 3 of the said Act provides for establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal and Section 4 provides for composition of Claims Tribunal and Benches thereof. "Bench" means a Bench of the Claims Tribunal as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act. Section 13 of the said Act provides that the Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed date, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority, as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act, relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or nondelivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway and other ancillary matters. Section 14 of the said Act provides for distribution of business amongst Benches and it lays down that where any Benches are constituted, the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification, make provisions as to the distribution of the business of the Claims Tribunal amongst the Benches and specify the matters which may be dealt with by each Bench. Section 15 provides that on and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13. Section 30 empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and in pursuance of the said powers, the Central Government had framed Rail way Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called 'the said Rules'). Rule 1(2) of the said Rules provides that they shall come into force on the appointed day within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the said Act. I have already pointed out that the appointed date has been notified by the Central Government as 8th Nov. 1989. Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with the territorial jurisdiction of Benches and it provides that the number of Benches;the headquarters of each Bench and the territorial jurisdiction of each Bench shall be as specified in Schedule 1. Under Serial No. 5 of Schedule 1 the headquarter of Bench of Claims Tribunal is at Bombay and the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench extends to Goa. This means that the Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay had been constituted on 8th Nov. 1989 and from that date onwards the jurisdiction to decide matters vested with the Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay in respect of territorial jurisdiction of Goa. The Civil Suit in question was pending on 8th Nov. 1989 and it appears that no one brought to the notice of learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao that the jurisdiction to try the matter with effect from 8-11-1989 had been vested with the Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay and in terms of Section 24 of the said Act, pending matters were required to be transferred to the said Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay. The learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, accordingly, proceeded to dispose of the Civil Suit by judgment dted 29-12-1989. Section 24 which has been reproduced above is crystal clear in this respect and with effect from the appointed date, i.e. 8-11 -1989, all suits which were pending before the Courts had to be transferred to the Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. In fact, Section 24(1) uses the expression "shall stand transferred on that day to the Claims Tribunal". Therefore, I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the learned District Judge, Margao hadnojurisdiction to deaf with and dispose of the suit after 8-11-1989. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Margao on 29-12-1989 is without jurisdiction and the said judgment is required to be set aside. Simultaneously, the proceedings are ordered to be transferred to the Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay in accordance with Section 24(1) and on receipt of the records, the said Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay shall deal with the matter in accordance with Section 24(2)(b) of the said Act and the other provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 29-12-1989 of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao is hereby set aside. In accordance with Section 24(1) of the said Act, the records of Civil Suit No. 21 of 1982 stand transferred to the Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay, who shall, on receipt of the records, proceed to dispose of the said Civil Suit in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao is directed to transfer all records within a period of 1 month from the receipt of the Order.