9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, as amended, is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive code regarding the place of suing, excluding the operation of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. 2. Whether the new Section 80 overrides clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Summary: Issue 1: Self-contained Code under Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act The Supreme Court examined whether Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, as amended by the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961, constitutes a complete and self-contained code regarding the place of suing, thereby excluding the operation of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court had held that Section 80 is a self-contained scheme for suits envisaged by it, excluding the operation of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, noting that the new Section 80 brought about significant changes, including specifying the places where suits "may be instituted," thus implying a repeal of the general provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act concerning such suits. Issue 2: Overriding Clause 12 of the Letters Patent The Full Bench of the High Court left open the question of whether Section 80 also overrides clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue in the judgment. Legislative History and Interpretation: The Court referred to the legislative history of Section 80, noting that the old Section 80 did not deal with liability for claims in respect of goods carried by a single railway and did not specify the places where such suits could be laid. The new Section 80, however, made specific references to certain classes of suits and provided the places where such suits "may be instituted." The Court observed that the new Section 80 constituted a special provision applicable only to suits for compensation against the Railways and impliedly repealed the general provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. Arguments and Conclusion: Dr. Shankar Ghosh, representing the appellants, argued that the new Section 80 was intended to expand the rights of suitors and not restrict them, emphasizing the expression "may be instituted." He contended that the doctrine of implied repeal was inapplicable and that Section 80 did not expressly exclude Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court, however, preferred the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, concluding that the new Section 80 is a self-contained provision regarding the choice of fora for such suits. The Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the High Court's view that the new Section 80 constituted a complete and self-contained special law as to the place of suing respecting suits envisaged by that Section. Outcome: The appeals were dismissed without any directions as to costs.
|
