LexETHIOPIAN AIRLINES versus GANESH NARAIN SABOO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 936 A ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES ' . v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO (Civil Appeal No. 7037 of 2004) B AUGUST 09, 2011 ;. [DALVEER BHANDARI, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 86 - Suit against c foreign Rules, Ambassadors and Envoys - Complaint before the Consumer Fora against appellant-foreign airlines by respondent alleging deficiency in service - Applicability of s. 86 to proceedings before consumer fora - Case of appellant that being a foreign State or its instrumentality it could not be D proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act without obtaining proper permission of the Central Government - Held: Proceeding before the Consumer Forum comes within the sweep of term 'suit' - However, s. 86 is inapplicable - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the E Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which came long after the CPC, are more focused and specific statutes, and thus, should be held to exclude s. 86 - In the fora created by the Consumer Act, the provisions of CPC are applicable to a limited extent and not all the provisions of CPC are made applicable to the .. ~ F proceedings of the National Forum - Rules created pursuant to the Consumer Act itself govern the procedure to be followed in the Consumer Fora - Thus, appellant-foreign airlines is not entitled to sovereign immunity with respect to a commercial transaction - Any other consent of the Central Government G is not required to subject the appellant-foreign airlines, to a suit in an Indian Court - They must be held accountable for the contractual and commercial activities and obligations that it undertakes in India - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Carriage by Air Act, 1972. H 936 ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 937 4 ,,; Suit - Meaning of - Held: Term 'suit' is a generic term A taking within its sweep all proceedings initiated by a party for realisation of the right vested in him in law - In common .r parlance, the term 'suit' is taken to include all proceedings of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature in which the disputes of ~ aggrieved parties are adjudicated before an impartial, forum B - Thus, proceedings before the consumer fora fall squarely within the term suit. Interpretation of statutes - Principle of statutory interpretation - Held: Specific statutes that come later in time c trump prior general statutes- ConsumerProtection Act, 1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which came long after the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are more focused and specific statutes and therefore, should be held to supersede s. 86 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. D Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Object of. Carriage by Air Act, 1972 - Application of - Held: Its rules apply to carriage performed by the State or by legally constituted public bodies - Thus, on facts, according to the E Indian Law, the appellant-foreign airlines can be subjected to suit under the Act - By signing onto the Warsaw Convention, . , .. the appellant-foreign airlines expressly waived its Airlines' right to immunity in cases such as that sub judice - Thus, the Central Governments of both India and Ethiopia have waived F that right by passing the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 .and by signing onto the Warsaw Convention. Doctrines/Principles: Principle of expressio unius - Explained. G ., Principle of restrictive immunity :... Explained International Law. Respondent booked a consignment of reactive dyes with appellant-Foreign Airlines to be delivered in H • J ~ • 938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R. A Tanzania. It is alleged that there was delay in delivery of goods in Tanzania which resulted in deterioration of the goods. The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant-Foreign Airlines before the State Consumer Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection B Act, 1986 for the alleged deficiency in service. The State Commission held that the complaint was not maintainable. On appeal, the National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission and remitted the matter to the State Commission for deciding it afresh. c Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground that a foreign State or its instrumentality cannot be proceeded against under the Act without obtaining prior permission from the Central Government; that a foreign State or its D instrumentality can legitimately claim sovereig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.