STATE OF KERALA versus GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 30-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
419 
STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS 
AUJ?USt 30, 1976 
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Cil'i/ Procedure, Ss. 79 a11d 80, suit for compensation agains/ railiray 
administration, whether impleading Union of India as a party necessary. 
The 111dia11 Railways Act, 1890, S. 3(6), Railway Administration, whether ·a 
separate legal e11tity. 
The appellant booked rice for being transported by train, from Bareilly rail-
way station to Trivandrum railway station. 
On delivery, the rice was found to 
be damaged and short in quantity. 
The appellant claimed damages from the 
rei;pondent, who resisted the claim on the grounds that the suit was not main-
tainable as the Union of India had not been impleaded as a defendant, and that 
a 1mit by a State against the Union of India could only he instituted in the 
Supreme Court under Art. 131 of the Constitution. The suit was dismiiied by 
the Trial Court, and an appeal from it was dismissed by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : The Southern Railway is owned by the Union .of India. As iuch, 
a suit dealiug with the alleged liability of that railway should have been brought 
agai-.st ·the Union of India. 
Section 80 of the C.P.C. contemplates institution 
of a suit against the Central Government even though it relates to a railway. 
. 
[422 E-F] 
Sul.Jwnwul Sham/al v. 011dh Rohi/khand Railway AIR 1924, Bom. 306; 
Hirac/zand S11ccara111 Ga11dhy & Ors. v. G.I.P. Railway Co., AIR 1928 Born. 421; 
Slwikh Elahi Bakhsh v. E.l. Railway Administration; AIR 1941 Patna 326; 
Chandra Mohan Saha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1953 Assam .193 
and P. R. Narayanaswami Iyer & Ors. v. Ui1ion of India AIR 1960 Madras 58, 
Approved. 
(2) Neither the definition of the "railway administration" in Section 3(6) 
of the Indian Railways Act, .nor the language of sections 72 to 80 o~ the Act, 
' lends support for the view that the railway administrations are to be treated as 
separate personalities, entries or separate juridical persons. [423 B-C] 
Dominion of India v. Finn Musaram Kishunprasad ATR 1950 Na~pur 85, 
overruled. 
A. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
( 3) The demarcation of the different State-owned railways as distinct units 
for administrative and fiscal purposes cannot have the effect of conferring the 
~tatus of juridical person upon the respective railway administrations or their 
G 
General Managers for the purpose of civil suits. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1367 of 1968. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
25-3-1965 of the Kerala High Court in AS. No. 487 of 1961). 
S. V. Gupte and K. M. K. Nair, for the appellant. 
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, B. B. Sawhney, Raju Ramachandran and 
Girish Chandra; for the respondent. 
K 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977) 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-This appeal by special leave by the State of Kuala 
is against the Full Bench decisioi;i of the Kerala High Court affirming 
on appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court whereby the suit 
for recovery of Rs. 28,208.70 filed by the appellant against the Gene-
ral Manager, Southern Railway respondent was dismissed. 
The appellant booked 2,000 tons of rice in 21,310 bags from 
Bareilli railway station for being transported to Trivandrum central 
railway station as per 10 railway receipts during the period from 
June 25 to July 5, 1950. According to the case of the appellant, the 
rice delivered at Trivandrum central railway station was short by 
79,378 lbs. It was also averred that the rice in 327 bags was found 
to be damaged. 
The appellants accordingly claimed Rs. 28,208.70 
as damages from the respondent. 
The respondent resisted the claim of the appellant, inter aUa, on 
the ground that the suit was not maintainable as the Union of India 
had not been impleaded as a defendant to the suit and that a suit by 
a State against the Union of India could be instituted only in the 
Supreme Court of India under article 131 of the Constitution. It is 
not necessary to set out the other pleas of the respondent. 
As many 
as nine issues were framed by the trial court. 
Two of 'the issues, 
namely, issue Nos. 1 and 3, were treated as preliminary issues- and 
arguments were heard on those issues. 
Issue Nos. 1 and 3 read a~ 
under: 
"l. Is the suit maintainable? Can a decree be passed agaimt 
the defendant as now impleaded ? 
2. Will the suit lie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.