1966 (6) TMI 17 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits.
2. Validity of the partition of the power-looms.
3. Maintainability of the suits without setting aside the decisions of the Excise Officers.
4. Cause of action for the sons to file the suits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits:
The main question debated was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The argument for exclusion of jurisdiction was advanced under two heads: Section 40(1) and Sections 35 and 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Section 40(1) Argument:
The court held that Section 40(1) applies to suits for damages and compensation in respect of acts or orders under the Act and does not apply to suits where the relief sought is a declaration that the goods manufactured by the plaintiff are not excisable goods and no excise duty is leviable on such goods. This argument was rejected as it was devoid of merit.

Sections 35 and 36 Argument:
The appellant contended that the remedy provided by Sections 35 and 36 excluded the jurisdiction of the civil court. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Basappa's Case, which held that the civil court's jurisdiction is not taken away by making the decision of a tribunal final unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication states so. The court concluded that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits because the action of the Excise Officers was wholly outside the statute, as the goods were not excisable goods.

2. Validity of the partition of the power-looms:
The next issue was whether there was a legal and valid partition of the 64 power-looms among the respondents.

Factum of Partition:
The court noted that the factum of the partition could not be challenged in second appeals. The partition was recorded in a memorandum prepared by an advocate and executed by the parties involved.

Legal and Valid Partition:
The appellant contended that the partition was void because one of the respondents was a minor at the time and was represented by a person who was neither a de jure nor a de facto guardian. The court held that a partition by agreement during the minority of a coparcener is binding unless it is unfair or prejudicial to the minor's interests. Since the partition was not raised as unfair or prejudicial in the lower courts and was not unfair on its face, it was held to be legal and valid. Furthermore, the father had the right under Hindu law to effect a partition without the consent of the sons, including a minor son, provided equal shares were given.

3. Maintainability of the suits without setting aside the decisions of the Excise Officers:
The appellant argued that the suits were not maintainable as there was no prayer for setting aside the decisions of the Superintendent and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

Decisions Outside the Statute:
The court held that the decisions of the Excise Officers were not given under any provision of the Act or the Rules and were, therefore, not required to be set aside for awarding the reliefs claimed. The decisions were wholly outside the statute as they sought to levy excise duty on non-excisable goods. Therefore, the respondents were entitled to relief without setting aside these decisions.

4. Cause of action for the sons to file the suits:
The appellant contended that only the father had a cause of action as the letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise was issued against him alone.

Cause of Action for Sons:
The court held that the letter was addressed to Nalini Silk Mills, assuming it was still a joint family concern. Therefore, the decision affected both the father and the sons. Consequently, the sons also had a cause of action to seek a declaration that the power-looms ceased to be joint family assets from the date of partition, and the art silk fabric manufactured thereafter did not attract excise duty.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits, the partition was legal and valid, the suits were maintainable without setting aside the decisions of the Excise Officers, and the sons had a cause of action. The appeals were dismissed with costs.