2008 (5) TMI 726 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to revision applications under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
2. Interpretation of the Tribunal's status as a "Court" under the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Binding precedent status of previous judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The core issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay, applies to revision applications filed under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The Tribunal under this Act is designated for resolving disputes involving the State Government or public undertakings. Section 19 allows the High Court to revise the Tribunal's awards within three months, with a proviso enabling condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a revision application that was 80 days late. The High Court initially held that Section 5 did not apply, referencing the decision in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition.

However, the Supreme Court, upon further review, found that the Tribunal acts as a "Court" under the Indian Evidence Act, thus Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which applies to Courts, should include Section 5 unless expressly excluded by the special law. The Court noted that the Tribunal has judicial powers akin to a Court, including summoning records, recording evidence, and making binding decisions.

2. Interpretation of the Tribunal's Status as a "Court":
The judgment extensively analyzed whether the Tribunal constituted under the Act qualifies as a "Court." The Tribunal's powers, such as administering oaths, summoning records, and passing binding awards, align it with the definition of a "Court" under the Indian Evidence Act. The Court cited various precedents where similar bodies were considered Courts, including Jyoti Narayan v. Brijnandan Sinha, G. Bulliswamy v. Smt. C. Annapurnamma, and Prem Chand v. Sri O.P. Trivedi.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal's decisions are final and binding, and it operates independently of the parties involved, reinforcing its status as a Court. This classification means the Tribunal's proceedings are judicial, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction over it is akin to appellate jurisdiction.

3. Binding Precedent Status of Previous Judgments:
The Supreme Court examined whether the decision in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena was a binding precedent. The Court found that the decision did not correctly interpret the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the Tribunal's proceedings. The Court referenced Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, which held that appellate authorities under special statutes with judicial powers are Courts, and thus Section 5 applies.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Tribunal under the Madhya Pradesh Act is a Court, and therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under Section 19. The matter was referred to a larger Bench for final determination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court determined that the Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, functions as a Court within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to revision applications under Section 19 of the Act, allowing for the condonation of delays. The judgment in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena was found to be incorrectly decided, necessitating further review by a larger Bench.