RATAN LAL ADUKIA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 19-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RATAN LAL ADUKIA & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
JULY 19, 1989 
B [RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Indian Railways Act, 1890: Section 80-Suits for compensation 
against Railways-Choice of forum for cognizance of suits-Whether 
limited by the section itself or provisions of Section 20 Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 and~ Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts 
' 
C Act, 1882 are also applicable. 
Statutory Interpretation-Doctrine of implied repeal-Applicability 
of. 
Under Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, prior to its 
D 
substitution by the Amendment Act, 1961, the choice of forum for filing 
suits for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or 
non-delivery of goods etc. carried hy the Railways was regulated hy 
Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 18 of the Presi-
dency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the case may be. However, the 
J
new section, besides making specific reference to a certain class of suits, 
E 
to be dealt with under the section and identifying the Railways Ad-
ministrations which were liable to the claim, also specifically provided 
the places where such suits may be instituted. 
The appellants filed two separate suits in the courts at Alipore and 
Calcutta for recovery of certain amounts from the Railways for short 
F 
deliveries of consignments booked by them. The respondent contended 4
that in view of Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, the trial 
0 
H 
courts concerned had no jurisdiction. The trial courts rejected the 
objection and decreed the suits. 
In the revisions filed by the respondent, the Full Bench of the 
High Court, by its common order, held that the tri?I courts had no 
jurisdiction. It was of the view that tire new Section 86, was a complete 
and self-contained special law, as to the place of suing, respecting suits 
envisaged by the section derogating from the generally of the provisions 
of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1890 and Section 18 of the 
Presidency Town Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 and that it brought 
about an implied repeal of those provisions as to the jurisdiction of 
440 
R.L. ADUKIA v. U.0.1. 
441 
courts by itself providing a jurisdiction to those suits. 
A 
In the appeals before this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
appellants that the legislative intent was clear: that it did not render 
Section 80 over-riding, by not expressly excluding Section 20 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1890, and that even if the provisions of Section 
B 
-~ 
80 were held to be a later special law, the principle of implied repeal 
could not be invoked, as there was no inconsistency between the two 
provisions and, on the contrary, both sets of provisions could exist and 
prevail. 
. 
~ 
Dismis~ing the appeals, 
c 
v 
HELD: The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the postulate 
that the legislature which is presumed to know the existing state of the 
law did not intend to create any confusion by retaining conflicting pro-
visions. Courts in applying this doctrine, are supposed merely to give 
effect to the legislative intent by examining the object and scope of the 
' 
two enactments. But in a conceivable case, the very existence of two 
D 
provisions may by itself, lead to an inference of mutual irreconcilability 
if the later set of provisions is by itself a complete code with respect to 
the same matter. In such a case, the actual detailed comparison of the 
two sets of provisions may not be necessary. I 452F -& J . 
It is a matter of legislative intent that the two sets of provisions 
E 
were not expected!<> be applied simultaneously. l452HI 
Section 80 is a special provision dealing with certain class of suits 
distinguishable on the basis of their particular subject-matter. It made 
-) 
a conscious departure on the law as to the place of suing in respect of 
F 
suits envisaged by that Section, and is a self-contained provision in 
regard to the choice of fora for such suits. There was no need for the 
legislature to specify the places of suing which would otherwise be 
covered by Section 20 C.P.C. unless the special prescription as to places 
of suing was considered to be necessary in derogation to the general ldw . 
as the matter contained _in Section 20 C.P.C. or the provisions in the 
G 
Small Cause Courts Act. [453B-C) 
• 
Assam Cold Storage v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Assam 69; 
Hindustan Machine Tools v. Union of India, AIR 1985 Madras 130; 
Oghamal Cha11dhury v. Union

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