9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (7) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), 4. The only issue raised and settled at the trial was -- Is the suit maintainable by reason of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act. 1973? 5. No witness was called to depose at the trial. The parties by consent tendered the Hundi and/or sola of exchange dated October 9, 1972 and two invoices both dated October 5, 1972 collectively marked Exhibit 'A' and an order dated January 13, 1977 of the Assistant Commissioner of Payments under the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in Claim Case No. 325 of 1975, marked Exhibit 'B', 6. Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Hirak Mitra appearing for the defendant have both contended that this Court was competent to consider subsequent events and made submissions keeping in view the said order 7. It transpires that subsequent to the filing of this suit, in or about 1975, a claim for ₹ 1,93,274.10 p. was preferred by the plaintiff before the Commissioner for the price of the said goods, and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prefer an appeal against the decision to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the coal mine is situated. Mr. H. Mitra cited the case of Cricket Club of India Ltd. v. Madha v L. Apte. for the following observations: -- Statutory enactments. although expressed in affirmative language, are sometimes treated as having a negative implied and their provisions, though affirmative in words are not necessarily so, if they are absolute, explicit and peremptory. Every statute limiting anything to be in one form, although it bespoke in the affirmative, yet includes in itself a negative. When there is a special affirmative power given which would not be required because there is a general power, it is always read to import the negative. Necessary implication means, not natural necessity, but so strong a probability of intention that an intention to the contrary to that which is imputed to the legislature cannot be supposed.'' Mr. H. Mitra also relied on a passage from Craies on Statute Law 5th Edition at page 244 which reads as follows:-- Statutory enactments, although expressed in affirmative language, are so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceed with the same claim before this Court. He cited the case of Pitaram v. Jujhar Singh and Jauhari Singh v. Ganga Sahai. In those two cases the litigant chose to avail himself of the remedy provided by Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and his application was dismissed on merits. It was held that he cannot agitate the same issue thereafter in a Civil suit as the decision upon the merits had become final. It was contended that in the instant case, the claim of the plaintiff after adjudication by the Commissioner cannot be pursued once again. 16. Mr. J. Mitra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted on the other hand that, only two questions arose for determination in this case. Firstly, whether after the promulgation of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, a suit would lie in a Civil Court for a claim which could be realised under the Act, and secondly, if a claim had once been proceeded with before the Commissioner whether the same could be again agitated before a Civil Court, assuming it had jurisdiction. 17. Mr. J. Mitra did not dispute that the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply in the instant case. 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contractor of a coal mine, in respect of any period prior to the appointed day shall be the liability of such owner, agent, manager or managing contractor, as the case may be, and shall be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the Government company. 7 (2) (b) No award, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority in relation to any coal mine passed after the appointed day, but in relation to any matter, claim or dispute which arose before that day, shall be enforceable against the Central Government or the Government company. 22. He submitted that the liability of the owner before May 1, 1973 was expressly left enforceable against the owner and such liabilities were not meant to be agitated before the Commissioner and these sections by implication left the jurisdiction of Civil Court unaffected. 23. The case of the Cricket Club of India (supra) and the passage at p. 244 in Craies Statute Law (supra) lay down the general proposition that in certain cases a negative implication can be drawn from a positive enactment. But to oust the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, mere negative implication is not enough. The implication must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
