Mittal Roadways (India) And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1719 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi in OC-9500116. whereby the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 8.12.1998 has directed that the applicant/petitioner herein cannot sue the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 according to Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Claims application can be filed only in respect of the responsibility of the Railway Administration and that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 not being part of the Railway Administration cannot be proceeded with.

2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, are as under :

The main claim applicants M/s Mittal Roadways (India) and Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta have filed the claim application under Section 16 of R.C.T. Act against Union of India through (1) G.M., N.Rly., (2) G.M., S.Rly., (3) Container Corpn. of India Ltd., (4) Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (5) Radhey Shyam Bros. (6) M/s Ganga Ram Gurdiyal & Sons (7) Modern Transport. The matter was at the stage of leading applicant's evidence as on 4-3-98. On 22-4-98, the question where the applicants can make respondents No. 3 to 7 as parties to this claim application, came up for discussion and on 17-9-98 the matter was heard. The applicant has submitted that under order Rule 10 of CPC any person can be added as a party by order of the Court. But the respondents have objected to having 7 respondents as parties to this claim application saying that Under Section 13 of R.C.T. Act application can be filed only regarding the matter regarding to the responsibility to the Railway Administration and the respondents (1) and (2) are the Genl. Managers, N.Rly. & S.Rly., whereas the respondent No. 3 is a public sector Undertaking namely M/s Container Corpn. of India Ltd. and the respondents No. 4,5, 6 and 7 are the private parties not at all connected with the Railways in any manner. The 3rd respondent M/s Container Corpn. of India has submitted their written statement wherein they have stated the same and has prayed that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between applicant & respondent No. 3. The 3rd Respondent container Corpn. has also submitting before us the following decision of the Supreme Court namely (1993 to SCC page 507 Chiranji Shrilal Goenka V/s Jasjit Singh & others) wherein observations made by the hon'ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antule v/s R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC page 602) was quoted saying that the jurisdiction can be conferred by statute and not by a court. Similarly thereafter cited another decision of the Supreme Court in (1993) 2 SCC page 520 that no court can try a matter without jurisdiction.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the Container Corporation of India Limited is a part of the Railways since it finds such a mention in the memorandum of understanding between the Container Corporation of India and Ministry of Railways in paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof. He also contends that the Inland Way Bill has been issued subject to the conditions and liabilities as specified in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Consequently, Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 before the trial court were necessary parties and could not have been stuck off from the array of parties.

4. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the Container Corporation of India Limited is an autonomous body, is a separate legal entity and as such has entered into a contract with the petitioner herein, which is also the case of the petitioner in CM(M) 426/1999, particularly in paragraph 6 thereof, wherein it is stated as under :

"That since the containers were supplied by the Respondent No. 3 and Inland Way Bills were also issued by the Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 3 was served a legal notice to pay compensation of Rs. 8,07,829.29 paise on account of loss of goods.

He further submits that the Respondent No. 3 (Respondent No. (ii) (c) herein) having entered into an independent contract with the petitioner could not be sued before the Railway Claims Tribunal in view of the embargo under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. He also contends that Respondent No. (ii) (c) is not be running away from the liability if they be held responsible, but cannot be sued under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenged. It appears to me that Respondent No. 3 (Respondent No. (ii) (c) herein) is an independent legal entity and has entered into an independent contract with the petitioner. Being an independent legal entity it is not a subsidiary of the Railways in any manner and therefore, cannot be sued under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. That being the position, the learned Tribunal was right in dropping Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 from the array of parties. I see no infirmity in the order under challenged.

6. Accordingly, CM(M) 426/1999 is dismissed. It may, however, be mentioned that it is nobody's case that the jurisdiction can be conferred by an agreement of parties, specially, when there is statutory bar to the same. It is needless to say that Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before the trial court have already been deleted from the array of parties in this Court.