Punjab National Bank Vs. Central Kirkand Coal Co. Ltd. and Bharat Mining Corporation Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
jurisdiction - recovery suit against colliery owners--filed before civil court--controversy about jurisdiction which was raised in f.a. 48 of 1977 which was referred to division bench--not finally decided and division bench left it to be decided by single judge where matter was pending--in view of this legal position, trial court rightly refused to stay suits on ground of jurisdiction. - - since these appeals are pending for sometime, we have no doubt that the bench hearing these appeals would do its very best to dispose them of as expeditiously as possible......48 of 1977(r), gupteshwar singh v.allahabad bank and ors. (reported in 1988 b.l.t. page-181), a single judge of this court held that when there is no express bar provided under the act, civil court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted, but afterwards in deciding f.a.no. 287 of 1979 (r), united commercial bank v. the east gannodih colliery co. (p.) ltd. and ors. another single judge of this court as reported in 1988 b.l.t. 344 held that civil court's jurisdiction is barred, although there is no specific provision under the act, but by analogies, it could be found that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred.4. on the basis of the second judgment of the single judge, the civil court's wherein such suits were being pending were passing dismissal order referring the later judgment. then the.....

Judgment:

P.K. Deb, J.

1. Both these revision petitions are taken up together as the impugned order are similar in both the cases.

2. Title Suit No. 50/74 was filed by the petitioner, Punjab National Bank against the Central Kirkand Coal Co. Ltd. and others for realisation of Rs. 2,28,488.40p. along with interest etc. Similarly, the same plaintiff-petitioner, Punjab National Bank filed Title Suit No. 51 of 1974 against Bharat Mining Corporation Ltd. and others for realisation of Rs. 16,41,743.65p, along with other reliefs.

3. Both these cases are pending in the court of Sub Judge at Dhanbad. Regarding the maintainability of such suits, there were controversial judgments by this Court. The Colliery owners had raised the question in such suits to the effect that in view of the provisions of Cooking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1.972, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the claims of the creditors and others is barred and such claim can only be raised before the Commissioner of Compensation constituted under the Act itself. Such 'points were raised in F.A. No. 48 of 1977 (R) and also afterwards in F.A. No. 287 of 1979 (R). In F.A. No. 48 of 1977(R), Gupteshwar Singh v.

Allahabad Bank and Ors. (reported in 1988 B.L.T. page-181), a single Judge of this Court held that when there is no express bar provided under the Act, Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted, but afterwards in deciding F.A.No. 287 of 1979 (R), United Commercial Bank v. The East Gannodih Colliery Co. (P.) Ltd. and Ors. another Single Judge of this Court as reported in 1988 B.L.T. 344 held that Civil court's jurisdiction is barred, although there is no specific provision under the Act, but by analogies, it could be found that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred.

4. On the basis of the second judgment of the Single Judge, the Civil Court's wherein such suits were being pending were passing dismissal order referring the later judgment. Then the matter was referred to L.P.A. and on the basis of such pendency in L.P.A. of the moot question regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the plaintiff abovenamed suit being scared filed petition for stay of the suits pending decision of the L.P.A. or referring the matter to the High Court. Learned Subordinate Judge in both the suits rejected the petitions holding that 'there was no stay order passed in the L.P.A. and practically such stay order was not possible to be passed blanketly in respect of such cases being filed. The petitions are dismissed' and hence these revision petitions have been filed.

5. It may be mentioned here that when there were contrary decisions by two Single Judges of this Court, the matter was referred to a Division Bench in F.A. 48 of 1977 (East Angarpathra Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. United Commercial Bank and

Ors. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 16.11.94 held that the earlier decision as reported in 1988 B.L.T. 181 was proper and the later decision as reported in 1988 BLT, 344 is only a per incuriam judgment. But, in para-9 of that judgment it has been held in the following manner:

We have said nothing to that effect, and if the learned Single Judge hearing these appeals entertains any doubt about the correctness of that decision, it is for him to proceed in accordance with law. We do not wish to express any opinion either way, because we have not considered the correctness of the decisions cited before us, and we have only held that the learned Single Judge while rendering the decision in M/s, Bharat Cooking Coal Limited had wrongly ignored the law as laid down in a binding precedent. Since these appeals are pending for sometime, we have no doubt that the Bench hearing these appeals would do its very best to dispose them of as expeditiously as possible.

6. So, in view of the above decision arrived at by a Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any force in these Revision Petitions for getting the stay order of the suits awaiting judgment of the L.P.A Court. The Revision Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the discussions made above and hence the suit may proceed according to the law.