1931 (3) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeals to His Majesty in Council Incompetent: Board Emphasizes Finality of Tribunal's Award

Secretary of State Versus Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.

Secretary of State Versus Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. - AIR 1931 PC 149 Issues Involved:1. Competency of the appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. Interpretation of the Calcutta Improvement Act and its modifications.3. Applicability of the amendments to the Land Acquisition Act to the local Act.4. Finality of the Tribunal's award.5. Jurisdiction and superintendence of the Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:1. Competency of the Appeal to His Majesty in Council:The primary issue was whether an appeal to His Majesty in Council was competent. The Society contended that no such appeal lay, while the Secretary of State argued otherwise. The judgment concluded that no appeal to His Majesty in Council was competent. The Board referred to the precedent set in the Rangoon Botatoung Company case, which established that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were in the nature of arbitration, and no appeal to His Majesty in Council was provided.2. Interpretation of the Calcutta Improvement Act and its Modifications:The local Act (Calcutta Improvement Act) constituted a Board of Trustees with wide powers, including land acquisition. The Act modified the Land Acquisition Act for its purposes, creating a special Tribunal to replace the 'Court' under the general Act. The Tribunal's award was deemed final, except for a limited right of appeal to the High Court as provided by Act 18 of 1911. The judgment emphasized that the local Act enacted a special law for land acquisition within Calcutta's municipal limits.3. Applicability of the Amendments to the Land Acquisition Act to the Local Act:The Secretary of State argued that the amendments made by Act 19 of 1921 to the Land Acquisition Act, which included a new subsection 26(2) deeming awards as decrees, should apply to the local Act. The judgment rejected this contention, stating that the local Act did not incorporate future amendments to the Land Acquisition Act. The Board held that the local Act only incorporated provisions from the existing Land Acquisition Act at the time of its enactment and did not bind itself to future amendments.4. Finality of the Tribunal's Award:The local Act provided that the Tribunal's award was final, subject only to a limited right of appeal to the High Court. The judgment underscored that the deliberate exclusion of Section 54 from the local Act indicated the legislature's intention to exclude any further appeal beyond the High Court. The Board concluded that introducing the new subsection 26(2) would be repugnant to the provisions of the local code, which intended to provide finality to the Tribunal's award.5. Jurisdiction and Superintendence of the Tribunal:The judgment also addressed whether the Tribunal was a Court subject to the High Court's superintendence. The Board referred to the decision in Hart Pandurang's case, where it was held that a similar Tribunal under the Bombay Act was not a Court under the High Court's control. The judgment suggested that even if the Tribunal's award were deemed a decree, it would not necessarily confer a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council, as the Tribunal might not be considered a Court subject to the High Court's superintendence.Conclusion:The judgment concluded that the appeals were incompetent and should be dismissed. The costs were to be apportioned, with the Secretary of State paying five-sixths of the Society's taxed costs of the consolidated appeals. The Board's decision was based on the interpretation of the local Act, the non-applicability of future amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, and the finality intended by the local code.