1964 (2) TMI 96 - HC - Companies Law

Tribunal not considered a subordinate Court for revision under Section 115 CPC

Bal Gopal Das Versus Mohan Singh and Anr.

The majority opinion in the case concluded that a Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, is not a Court ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code.2. Whether a revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code lies against an order passed by such a Tribunal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Tribunal as a Court Subordinate to the High Court:The primary question was whether the Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code (CPC).The judgment delves into the distinction between a 'Court' and a 'persona designata.' It was argued that the Tribunal is not necessarily covered by the terms 'Court' or 'persona designata.' The Constitution itself, in Article 227, distinguishes between Courts and tribunals. The word 'Court' in Section 115 CPC refers to Courts of Civil Judicature as indicated in the Preamble and Section 3 of the CPC, which outlines a hierarchy of Courts governed by the Code.The Tribunal under the Act is defined in Section 2(12) as any Civil Court specified under Section 4. This definition implies that once a Civil Court is specified to exercise jurisdiction under the Act, it functions as a Tribunal and not as a regular Civil Court. Sections 25 and 26 of the Act regulate proceedings under the Act by the provisions of the CPC but do not make the CPC applicable to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Section 28 further distinguishes between a Tribunal and a Civil Court by stating that decrees or orders passed by the Tribunal are executed in the same manner as if passed by a Civil Court, introducing a legal fiction.The judgment also references the Privy Council's decision in Rajah Nilmoni Singh Deo Bahadur v. Taranath Mookerjee, which held that a Rent Court under Act X of 1859 was a Civil Court for the limited purpose of transferring decrees for execution but not for all purposes of Act VIII of 1859. This principle was applied to conclude that the Tribunal under the Act is not a Civil Court for all purposes of the CPC, including Section 115.2. Revision under Section 115 CPC:The judgment further analyzes whether a revision under Section 115 CPC lies against an order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, though functioning as a Civil Court for specific purposes under the Act, is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. The subordination mentioned in Section 3 CPC does not apply to Tribunals under the Act, as they are not included in the hierarchy of Courts specified in Section 3.The judgment refers to various case laws, including Full Bench decisions, to support the view that a Tribunal under the Act is not a Civil Court for purposes of Section 115 CPC. The Tribunal's orders are not subject to revision under Section 115 CPC as it does not fall within the hierarchy of Courts governed by the CPC.Separate Judgments:The judgment includes separate opinions by different judges. One judge opined that the Tribunal is a Civil Court and subordinate to the High Court, thus allowing revisions under Section 115 CPC. However, the majority opinion concluded that the Tribunal is not a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC and no revision lies against its orders.Conclusion:The majority opinion answered the reference as follows: 'A Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (Act No. LXX of 1951) is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code and no revision lies under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code against an order passed by such a Tribunal.'