Mandatory statutory notice under Goa industrial law cannot be waived by analogy with section 80 CPC on a plaint-only review
Section 52-A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 was treated as a mandatory notice requirement, but it was distinguished from section 80 CPC because it contains no equivalent provision for leave or dispensation of notice, so no deemed waiver could be inferred from section 80 practice. The court also stressed that, on an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, it must look only at the plaint averments and cannot resolve disputed questions on whether the impugned acts were within the petitioner's statutory powers. As the plaint itself did not conclusively show a bar of law, rejection of the plaint was not justified.
Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred for want of notice under section 52-A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965, and whether any deemed waiver of that notice could be inferred from the dispensing of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The requirement under section 52-A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 was held to be mandatory, but it was found to be materially different from section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 80 contains an express power to grant leave and contemplates acts done or purported to be done in official capacity, whereas section 52-A operates in respect of acts done in pursuance of or in execution of the Act and contains no equivalent provision for dispensing with notice. For that reason, the Court rejected the notion of deemed waiver. At the same time, it was held that, for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d), the Court must confine itself to the plaint averments and cannot determine disputed questions as to whether the impugned acts were within or beyond the statutory powers of the petitioner. Since the plaint raised disputed questions on that issue, it could not be said from the plaint alone that the suit was barred by law.
Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the revision failed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
