KALPATARU AGROFOREST ENTERPRISES versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 05-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KALPATARU AGROFOREST ENTERPRISES 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
MARCH 5, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987:· 
Ss. I8(3)(j) and 23 r/w r. 32 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure} 
C Rules, 1989-Railway Claims Tribunal-Power of review-Held, Tribunal 
has the same power as are vested in civil court under CPC-Against appealab/e 
orders of Tribunal from which an appeal lies but no appeal is filed, the review 
petition is maintainable before the rribuna,l~In the instant case, no appeal 
was filed against the order in question though u!s 23. It is appealable-
D Consequently, the review petition is maintainable before the Tribunal-Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908-s.114-0rder 47, Rule I-Review. 
Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989: 
r. 32-Validity of-Railway Claims Tribunal-Review of decisions-Held, 
Rule 32 restricts the scope of power of review vested uls 18/3(j) of the Act to 
E non-appealable orders and leaves out from its ambit orders which are 
appealable u/s 23 of the Act though such orders could be reviewed in view of 
s.114 and Order 47, Rule•/, CPC-To that extent Rule 32 runs counter to 
s. J 8(3)(j) of the Act-As Rule 32 is repugnant to statutory provision of clause 
(j) of sub-section (3) of s.18, it is bad arid cannot be allowed to override the 
F specific provision of the Act-High Court erred in not considering the appeal 
on merits on the ground that review petition was not maintainable under Rule 
32-0rder of High Court set aside-Matter remitted to High Court for decision 
on merits-Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987-ss.18(3)(j) and 23-Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908-s. ll 4 and Order 47, R. J. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1901 of 
2002. 
-~ 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2000 of the Madhya Pradesh 
\ 
High Court in M.A. No. 160 of 1999. 
WITH 
298 
>· 
KALPATARU AGROFORESTENTERPRISES v. U.0.1. 
299 
C.A. Nos. 1902, 1903, 1904 and 1906/2002. 
Vibhu Bakhru and P.N. Puri for the Appellants. 
P.S. Narasimha, P. Sridhar and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
Issue notice in SLP (C) 5519, 5521°CC Nos. 1911and2228/2002. Mr. 
P.S. Narasimha, Advocate, on behalf of Ms. Anil Katiyar Advocate, accepts 
notice for the Union of India. 
Delay is condoned. 
Leave is Granted in all the SLPs. 
A 
B 
c 
These five appeals arise out of the orders of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in different Misc. Appeals on October 30, 2000. 
The claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) is D 
the appellant. 
The common question to be considered by us relates to maintainability 
of a review petition before the Tribunal against an appealable order passed 
by it. 
To appreciate the issue involved it would suffice to refer to the facts 
in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4413/2001. The appellant transported 
bamboo chips through Indian Railways to different mills in India. It is alleged 
that higher freight was paid by it to the Railways on the basis of rationalisation 
E 
of the fares, on the ground that transportation would be by a longer route 
than the direct route. In fact for the transportation of goods a direct shorter F 
route was adopted by the Railways. Accordingly, it made a claim for refund 
of Rs. 54, l 23 being the excess amount paid to the railways, by filing O.A. 
No. 391 of 1995 in the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims 
Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal 
dismissed the refund claim on December 10, 1997. The appellant filed a G 
review petition against that order before the Tribunal. The revie.w petition 
was dismissed on October 27, 1998. Dissatisfied with the order passed on the 
review petition, the appellant filed Misc. Appeal No. 160/99 in the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 23 of the Act. On October 
30.2000, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who decided the appeal, 
took the view that the review petition itself was not maintainable in view of H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter 
referred to as the Rules') so no relief could be granted to the appellant 
against the order of the Tribunal passed on the review petition. 
Mr. Vibhu Bal<hru, the learned counsel for the appellant in all the 
appeals, contends that Section 18(3)(f) of the Act specifically

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.