Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In view of the above, I do not see any strong reasons to countenance the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the decision in Amrutlal v. Principal Rent Controller (supra) requires reconsideration.

15. The other submission that proviso to Rule 22 of the Rent Rules only indicates an instance where the Rent Controller can follow the procedure laid down in the matter of summoning witnesses and compelling production of documents and does not exclude the applicability of provisions of CPC cannot be accepted. When the statute specifically indicates the procedure to be followed and also indicates the few provisions of statute to be followed, it must be taken that the Legislature prohibited the Tribunal from following other provisions of CPC. This is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC, ST Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India. Article 338(1) of the Constitution of India enables the appointment of National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Clause (8) of Article 338 provides that the Commission constituted under Clause (1) of Article 338 for investigating any matter referred to in Clause (5) (a) and (b) under Article 338 shall have all powers of Civil Court. The said clause further enumerates the matters in relation to which the Commission has powers of Civil Court. These provisions fell for interpretation in the above case before the Supreme Court. A contention was raised that the Commissioner appointed under Article 338(1) of the Constitution has powers to issue directions in the nature of interim injunction. The Apex Court rejected the contention that he has powers to grant injunction. It is suffice to extract the head note of the reported decision (SCC) which reads as under:

All the procedural powers of a Civil Court are given to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint under Article 338(5)(b). The powers of a Civil Court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of Clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4-3-1993 directing the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter.