S.S. GAREWAL versus MESSRS. BHOWRA KANKANEE COLLERIES

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 26-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

- -'. 
-~-
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
475 
The fa.ot that he does not believe in such thing does 
not make him any the less a Hindu. The non-
belief in rituals or even in some dogmas does not 
ipso facto remove him from the fold of Hinduism. 
He was born a Hindu and continues to be one till 
he takes to another religion. But what is neces-
sary is, being a Hindu, whether he was in a position 
to appreciate the question referred to Lim and give 
suitable answer to it. 
After going through his 
evidence, we have no do.ubt that this defendant 
had applied his mind to the question before him. 
Whatever may be his personal predilections or 
views on Hindu religion and its rituals, he is a 
Hindu and he disoharged his duty as a guardian of 
the widow in the matter of giving his consent. In 
the oircumstances of the case, his consent was 
sufficient to validate the adoption. 
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed 
with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
--
S., S. GAREW AL 
v. 
MESSRS. BHOWRA KANKANEE COLLERIES 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P: B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 
WANOHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
T. L. VENKATARAl\IA AIYAR, JJ.) 
Mines-Acci.Unl-Court of Inquiru-O•der to pay expen-
ses.-;Amovnt 
no~ . quantified-Court, · if. 
becomes .functus 
off•eio on submitting 
!~por~-Subs~quent order 
quantifying 
":mm.ml-If such quantif•cation ''.al•d-A_ssessors, if must join 
in alZ ora•rB of th;- Court of Ir:yuiry-Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 
1952), s. 24-Mines Rules, 19.<N, r. 22. 
The Government of India under s. 24 of the Mines Act 
19521 ordered an enquiry into the di.aster in the re<pondent'; 
~lliery. The Court of Inquiry submitted its report on 
1962 
Y.T.S. 
CAaniar•seltharo 
Mudcliar 
v. 
KulandciHlu 
Muia,J;,, 
Subia Rao .1. 
1962 
April 26. 
1962 
8. S. Oar1wal 
••• 
.llJt. Bhomra 
K•drlne1 Coll1ries 
' ' 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1963] 
September 26, 1955, and ,found inter-alia that the accident 
was due to the negligence on the part of the pianagement. and 
therefore ordered the owners to pay the expenses of the en-
quiry as provided by ! . 22 of the Mines Rules, 1955 
The 
amount of the expen~ to be paid were, however, not quanti-
fied in the rtport. At the request of Chief Inspector, Mines, 
the Judge of the Court of Inquiry after due notice to the par-
ties concerned quantified the expenses by his order dated 
September 7, li)56. 
The respondents 
petitioned 
under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution 9hallenging the order quantifying 
the expenses on three grounds-( 1) the Court of Inquiry be-
Came fanctus officio after it had'submitted its report,and there-
fore the Judge had no pqwer left to pass the order <j~antifying 
the expenses. Jf the said order was to be treated a;i review of 
'the order awarding expenses it would still be void .a~.!herc was 
no power of review in the Court of Inquiry: 
(3) when th<;: 
order quaritifying the expense \vas passed the two assessor 
were not present and· were not associated with the enquiry 
therefore, the Judge could.not pass the order alone .. The Hig_h 
Court allowed the writ.petition adding that it 'was not interfer-
ing with the order relating to eitpenses made by the Judge in 
his report dated September 26, 1955. 
-
• 
Held, that when an order to pay expenses is passed with-
out quantifying the amount in a report by a Court of Inquiry, 
it necessarily carries with it the impJication that the person 
appointed Jo hold the enquiry would quantify the expenses 
later in materials heing placed before him as othenvise such 
an order would be rendered completely m,igatory. 
Where no 
time was fixed within \vliich the report had to be made by the 
Court of enquiry it cannot be said that the period for which 
the Court of enquiry \-Vas appointed necessarily came to an end 
with the submitting of the report and this Court of Inquiry 
became functua officio. 
( 
)<.. 
Held, further, that when the report itself containea the 
order for. payment for ~·penses, the later' order is merely a 
/: 
quantification of the earlier order and would be on a par with 
what happens_.everyday i,n courts which pass decrees with 
costs. ·when giving judgment, courts do not qllantify cost in 
th~ judgment. Therefore the order dated September 7, 1956, 
cannot be treated as a review or a'.ny va,:_iation of the otder. 
passed in th~ report of September 26, 1955, which th,l'judge 
had no powers" to pass. 
~ 
Held, also, that it was open to the Judge 'of the Court of 
f'"
inquiry to quantify the ex.pense• a

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