Allowed

Union of India. v. M/S.Cummins Diesel Sales and Services(India)Ltd.andANR

Bombay HC24 Aug 2005FA/1150/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil appeal concerning a decree passed by a tribunal under the Railways Act 1989, the single judge bench held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass a decree without a prior notice under Section 106. Relying on earlier precedents regarding Central and Eastern Railway delegations, the court set aside the impugned decree and dismissed the claim petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree are set aside; the Claim Petition is dismissed.

Union of India. Vs M/S.Cummins Diesel Sales and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

 FIRST APPEAL NO.1150 OF 1991

¶5

 Union of India & Anr. : Appellants.

¶6

 versus

¶7

 M/s.Cummins Diesel Sales

¶8

 & Service India Ltd. & Anr. : Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.A.N.Samant for the appellants.

¶10

 None for the respondents.

¶11

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.

¶12

 DATED : 24th August 2005.

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

 1. Heard Mr.Samant, the learned counsel

¶15

 appearing for the appellants. Respondents are
 served. Nobody is present for them. Mr.Samant
 mainly contended that the tribunal has passed the
 decree against two railways i.e. Central Railway
 and Eastern Railway. He drew my attention to
 Section 107 of the Railways Act 1989 which lays
 down that "An application for compensation for
 loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or

¶16

¶17

 non-delivery of goods shall be filed against
 railway administration on whom a notice under
 section 106 has been served". Mr.Samant
 contended that even as per the allegations in the
 plaint, no such notice has been served upon the
 central railway and, therefore, there cannot be
 decree against the central railway and, so far as
 eastern railway is concerned, even though the
 notice is served, the tribunal had no

¶18

 jurisdiction to pass a decree against the eastern
 railway. I have up held this contention raised
 by Mr.Samant in another appeal being First Appeal
 NO.248 of 1993 decided on 17th February 2005.
 That was done by me on the basis of the Judgment
 of Single Bench (Justice T.D.Sugla) in Civil
Revision Application No.287 of 1988 [Union of
India v/s. M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. &
ors.] decided on April 20, 1989. Since this
 objection goes to the very root of the matter, it
 is not necessary to consider other objections or
 challenges to the decree raised by Mr.Samant.
 Consequently, the appeal has to be allowed.
 Hence I pass the following order :-

¶19

 :ORDER:

¶20

¶21

 The appeal is allowed. The impugned

¶22

 judgment and decree is set aside.

¶23

 The Claim Petition filed by the
 respondents is dismissed.

¶24

 No order as to costs.

¶25

 If the amount is deposited by the
 appellants pursuant to the impugned
 judgment and decree, the same shall be

¶26

 returned to them.

¶27

[D.G.DESHPANDE,J]

Union of India. v. M/S.Cummins Diesel Sales and Services(India)Ltd.andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India. v. M/S.Cummins Diesel Sales and Services(India)Ltd.andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjana Prasad Bachute Vs Prasad Suresh Bachute

Anjana Prasad Bachute Vs Prasad Suresh Bachute

Union of India Vs Taramati @Tarabai Sukhdeo Mane

Indrapal Bhatia Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr.Bombay

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Shweta Anil Tekade and Ors.

Shankar Mahadu Palde and Ors. Vs Chandrabhaga Arjun Mondhe and Anr.