9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit in light of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 3. Res judicata and principles analogous thereto. 4. Election of remedies by the plaintiff. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Suit: The primary issue was whether the suit was maintainable in view of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The defendant argued that the Act provided a complete code for claims against colliery owners, which should be brought exclusively before the Commissioner. Section 20 of the Act mandates that claims against coal mine owners must be preferred before the Commissioner within thirty days from the specified date. Section 23 further stipulates that claims not filed within the specified time will be excluded from disbursements by the Commissioner. 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court: The defendant contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by the Act, citing Sections 20, 23, and 24, and relying on authoritative texts and case law to argue that affirmative statutory provisions can imply a negative exclusion of jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff's counsel argued that the Act did not explicitly or by necessary implication exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The plaintiff cited the Barakar Coal Co. Ltd. case, where it was held that the Act did not oust Civil Court jurisdiction but merely provided a procedure for claim realization against compensation payable to the erstwhile owners. 3. Res Judicata and Principles Analogous Thereto: The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim had already been adjudicated by the Commissioner, and thus, the matter was res judicata. This principle, as cited from the European Central Rly. Co. case and Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar, suggests that once a claim is adjudicated, it merges into the judgment, and no further action can be taken on the original claim. The plaintiff conceded that if payments were received pursuant to the Commissioner's adjudication, the same amount could not be realized again under a Civil Court decree. 4. Election of Remedies: The defendant argued that the plaintiff, having elected to pursue its claim before the Commissioner, could not proceed with the same claim before the Civil Court. This principle was supported by cases like Pitaram v. Jujhar Singh, where it was held that once a remedy is pursued and adjudicated, the same issue cannot be agitated in another forum. Conclusion: The Court held that the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 did not oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It was determined that the Act did not create any special right or liability but merely provided a method for realizing existing claims. The Court found that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was retained for claims against ex-owners of nationalized collieries, especially for claims arising before the appointed day, May 1, 1973. The Court also addressed the issue of res judicata, noting that there was no pleading or issue raised on this ground. However, it concluded that even if the Commissioner's decision was final, the plaintiff's claim could be adjudicated based on admitted facts, as no issues were raised on the merits of the case. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, issuing a decree for Rs. 1,83,082.52 with interest and costs, subject to any amount already realized from the Commissioner being adjusted. Judgment: The suit was maintainable, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The principles of res judicata did not bar the suit, and the plaintiff's election to proceed before the Commissioner did not preclude the Civil Court action. The plaintiff was awarded a decree for Rs. 1,83,082.52 with interest and costs, with adjustments for any amounts already recovered from the Commissioner.
|
