Dipak Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Commissioner of Payments (Jute) and Another

Dipak Kumar Chatterjee vs Commissioner of Payments (Jute) and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 07, 1993

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/648523

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/648523
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: P.B. Sawant and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 07, 1993
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5954 of 1990
Subject: Company

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 3(1)(xi) & 23 & Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Rule 7: [Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma & H.L. Dattu, JJ] Offence of atrocities - Quashing or proceedings Held, Plea that in F.I.R. caste of accused was not mentioned and, therefore, proceedings shoul...

Key legal issue: Company

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dipak Kumar Chatterjee

Respondent

Commissioner of Payments (Jute) and Another

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1993SC1264; JT1993(1)SC58; 1993(1)SCALE16; (1993)1SCC434

Excerpt

- sections 3(1)(xi) & 23 & scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) rules, 1995, rule 7: [dr. arijit pasayat, dr. mukundakam sharma & h.l. dattu, jj] offence of atrocities - quashing or proceedings held, plea that in f.i.r. caste of accused was not mentioned and, therefore, proceedings should be quashed cannot be allowed. whether accused belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe can be gone into when matter is being investigated. .....in those proceedings that he has purported to go into the merits of the appellant's claim. unfortunately, in these proceedings, the appellant has not challenged the order of the commissioner dated 12th april, 1989 whereby the commissioner has reopened the appellant's claim against the mill. however, notwithstanding this technical defect, we permit him to challenge the same since the appellant in these proceedings has challenged the high court's order pursuant to which the commissioner has passed his said order of 12th april, 1989.2. we find from his order of 12th april, 1989 that the commissioner has gone beyond the provisions of section 17 of the act inasmuch as he has tried to investigate the merits and the validity of the appellant's claim decreed by the high court. the commissioner has to examine the said decretal claim, only within the bounds of the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the act. the order dated 12th april, 1989 being without jurisdiction is void and is hereby set aside. the respondent-commissioner is directed to examine the decretal claim of the appellant only in the light of the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the act.3. the appeal stands allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. the commissioner is directed to decide the appellant's claim within four months from today.

Full Judgment

1. The present appeal is filed against the order of the High Court passed on 3rd March, 1989. The grievance of the appellant is that by the said order, the high Court has given a free hand to the Commissioner under Section 17 of the Jute Companies [Nationalisation] Act, 1980 [the 'Act'] to deal with the claim of the appellant, as and when filed, as the Commissioner thought fit to do. The implication of the order is that the Commissioner could go into the merits of the appellant's claim once again, notwithstanding that the appellant has a decree of the High Court in his favour which has become final. There is no doubt that the observations made by the High Court while 30 passing the impugned order are capable of being interpreted in the manner the appellant urges before us. It is also found from the affidavit filed by the Commissioner in those proceedings that he has purported to go into the merits of the appellant's claim. Unfortunately, in these proceedings, the appellant has not challenged the order of the Commissioner dated 12th April, 1989 whereby the Commissioner has reopened the appellant's claim against the Mill. However, notwithstanding this technical defect, we permit him to challenge the same since the appellant in these proceedings has challenged the High Court's order pursuant to which the Commissioner has passed his said order of 12th April, 1989.

2. We find from his order of 12th April, 1989 that the Commissioner has gone beyond the provisions of Section 17 of the Act inasmuch as he has tried to investigate the merits and the validity of the appellant's claim decreed by the High Court. The Commissioner has to examine the said decretal claim, only within the bounds of the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. The order dated 12th April, 1989 being without jurisdiction is void and is hereby set aside. The respondent-Commissioner is directed to examine the decretal claim of the appellant only in the light of the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.

3. The appeal stands allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. The Commissioner is directed to decide the appellant's claim within four months from today.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1993 Same Parties Dipak Kumar Chatterjee vs Commissioner of Payments (Jute) and... Same Subject Company Same Judge P.B. Sawant and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.

Company