{"id":230124,"date":"1989-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989"},"modified":"2017-05-14T03:04:25","modified_gmt":"2017-05-13T21:34:25","slug":"ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989","title":{"rendered":"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 104, \t\t 1989 SCR (3) 440<\/div>\n
Author: M Venkatachalliah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRATAN LAL ADUKIA & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/07\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nMISRA RANGNATH\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  104\t\t  1989 SCR  (3) 440\n 1989 SCC  (3) 537\t  JT 1989 (3)\t148\n 1989 SCALE  (2)28\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1990 SC2072\t (31)\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian Railways Act, 1890: Section 80--Suits for compen-\nsation\tagainst Railways--Choice of forum for cognizance  of\nsuits--Whether\tlimited by the section itself or  provisions\nof  Section 20 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section  18\nof  the\t Presidency Small Cause Courts Act,  1882  are\talso\napplicable.\nStatutory  Interpretation--Doctrine of\timplied\t repeal--Ap-\nplicability of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Under Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, prior\nto  its substitution by the Amendment Act, 1961, the  choice\nof  forum  for filing suits for compensation for  loss,\t de-\nstruction,  damage, deterioration or non-delivery  of  goods\netc. carried by the Railways was regulated by Section 20  of\nthe Code of Civil Procedure or Section 18 of the  Presidency\nSmall  Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the case may be.  However,\nthe  new  section, besides making specific  reference  to  a\ncertain\t class of suits, to be dealt with under the  section\nand  identifying  the Railways\tAdministrations\t which\twere\nliable\tto the claim, also specifically provided the  places\nwhere such suits may be instituted.\n    The appellants filed two separate suits in the courts at\nAlipore\t and Calcutta for recovery of certain  amounts\tfrom\nthe Railways for short deliveries of consignments booked  by\nthem. The respondent contended that in view of Section 80 of\nthe  Indian Railways Act, 1890, the trial  courts  concerned\nhad no jurisdiction. The trial courts rejected the objection\nand decreed the suits.\n    In the revisions filed by the respondent, the Full Bench\nof the High Court, by its common order, held that the  trial\ncourts had no jurisdiction. It was of the view that the\t new\nSection\t 80, was a complete and self-contained special\tlaw,\nas to the place of suing, respecting suits envisaged by\t the\nsection\t derogating from the generally of the provisions  of\nSection 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1890 and  Section\n18  of the Presidency Town Small Cause Courts Act, 1882\t and\nthat it brought about an implied repeal of those  provisions\nas to the jurisdiction of\n441\ncourts by itself providing a jurisdiction to those suits.\n    In\tthe  appeals before this Court it was  contended  on\nbehalf\tof  the appellants that the legislative\t intent\t was\nclear: that it did not render Section 80 over-riding, by not\nexpressly  excluding Section 20 of the Code of Civil  Proce-\ndure,  1890, and that even if the provisions of\t Section  80\nwere  held to be a later special law, the principle  of\t im-\nplied  repeal could not be invoked, as there was  no  incon-\nsistency  between the two provisions and, on  the  contrary,\nboth sets of provisions could exist and prevail.\nDismissing the appeals,\n    HELD:  The\tdoctrine of implied repeal is based  on\t the\npostulate that the legislature which is presumed to know the\nexisting  state\t of  the law did not intend  to\t create\t any\nconfusion  by  retaining conflicting  provisions..Courts  in\napplying  this doctrine, are supposed merely to give  effect\nto the legislative intent by examining the object and  scope\nof  the two enactments. But in a conceivable case, the\tvery\nexistence of two provisions may by itself, lead to an infer-\nence of mutual irreconcilability if the later set of  provi-\nsions is by itself a complete code with respect to the\tsame\nmatter.\t In such a case, the actual detailed  comparison  of\nthe two sets of provisions may not be necessary. [452F-G]\n    It\tis a matter of legislative intent that the two\tsets\nof provisions were not expected to be applied  simultaneous-\nly. [452H]\n    Section  80 is a special provision dealing with  certain\nclass of suits distinguishable on the basis of their partic-\nular  subject-matter. It made a conscious departure  on\t the\nlaw  as to the place of suing in respect of suits  envisaged\nby that Section, and is a self-contained provision in regard\nto the choice of fora for such suits. There was no need\t for\nthe  legislature to specify the places of suing which  would\notherwise be covered by Section 20 C.P.C. unless the special\nprescription  as  to places of suing was  considered  to  be\nnecessary  in  derogation to the general law as\t the  matter\ncontained  in  Section 20 C.P.C. or the\t provisions  in\t the\nSmall Cause Courts Act. [453B-C]\n    Assam Cold Storage v. Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1971 Assam 69;\nHindustan  Machine Tools v. Union of India, AIR 1985  Madras\n130; Oghamal Chaudhury v. Union of India, [1974] CLJ 420 and\nUnion of India v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., AIR 1981 Bombay\n414, approved.\n442\n    New\t India\tAssurance Co. v. Union of  India,  AIR<\/a>\t1981\nDelhi  135  and Union of India v. C.R. Prabhanna,  AIR<\/a>\t1977\n132, over-ruled.\n    Shah  Babulal Khimji v. Jaya Ben D. Kania  and<\/a>  another,\n[1982]\t1 SCR 187; Municipal Council, Palai v.\tT.J.  Joseph\nand others<\/a>, [1964] 2 SCR 87; Zaver Bhai Amaidas v. State  of\nBombay,\t AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 752; Union of India v. Ladu  Lal  Jain,<\/a>\n[1964]\t3  SCR\t624 and Union of India v.  The\tSteel  Stock\nHolders Syndicate, Poona, AIR<\/a> 1976 SC 879, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  224  &
\n734 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.87 of the Calcut-
\nta High Court in Ref. No. 1\/83 from C.R. Case No. 2938-40\/81
\n& Civil Order No. 2537\/81, C.R. Case No. 75\/81, Civil  Order
\nNo. 362\/82, & C.R. No. 3803 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
    Dr.\t Shankar Ghosh, Badar Durrez Ahmed,  Parijat  Sinha,
\nA.K. Sarkar, A.K. Sahay for the Appellants.
\n    Kuldip  Singh, Additional Solicitor General, A ,K.\tGan-
\nguli, C.V. Subba Rao, A. Subba Rao and Hemant Sharma for the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    VENKATACHALIAH,  J. These appeals, by certificate,\tpre-
\nferred against the common order dated 17.6.1987 of the\tHigh
\nCourt of Calcutta in Full Bench Reference 1 of 1983 raise  a
\nshort and interesting question, of some general\t importance,
\nwhether the choice of the forum for the cognizance of  suits
\nenvisaged in Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (As
\nsubstituted by Section 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment)
\nAct,  1961 (Act 39 of 1961) is limited by Section 80  itself
\nor  whether  provisions of Section 20 of the Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure, 1908 and Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause
\nCourts\tAct, 1882, as the cases may be, in regard to  places
\nof  suing, are also applicable to the suits referred  to  in
\nthe said Section 80.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question, in other words, is whether the said\tSec-
\ntion  80 is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive  Code  in
\nregard to the place of suing respecting suits constituting a
\nspecial law for such suits excluding, by necessary  implica-
\ntion, the operation of provisions of Section 20 of the\tCode
\nof Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 18 of the Presidency
\n443<\/span>
\nSmall Cause Courts Act, 1882. The Full Bench, resolving\t the
\nearlier\t conflicts of Judicial opinion in the High Court  on
\nthe  points  has held Section 80 as containing within  it  a
\nself-contained\tscheme\tfor suits envisaged by it  and\tthat
\nSection 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 18  of
\nthe  Presidency Small Cause Courts, Act 1882 stand  excluded
\nfrom  operation. The Full Bench, however, has left open\t the
\nquestion whether Section 80 also over-rides clause 12 of the
\nletters patent.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\tIn the original proceedings from which C.A.  224  of
\n1988 arises, appellant instituted Money Suit No. 35 of\t1978
\nagainst the Respondent in the Court of the 6th Sub-Judge  at
\nAlipore, Distt.–24 Parganas, West Bengal, seeking  recovery
\nof  Rs.\t 13,200 respecting an alleged short  delivery  of  a
\nconsignment  booked  with the Respondent  on  94.4.1975\t Ex-
\nErnakulam  to  Ranchi,\ta station under\t the  South  Eastern
\nRailway\t Administration.  Respondent contested the  suit  on
\ngrounds, inter-alia, that having regard to the said  Section
\n80,  the  Court at Alipore had no jurisdiction.\t The  trial-
\nCourt by its order 22.5. 1981 having rejected this objection
\nas  to jurisdiction, Respondent preferred C.R. 2938 of\t1981
\nunder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the
\nHigh  Court to have that order revised. The matter  was\t re-
\nferred\tto a Full-Bench, culminating in the order now  under
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
    3. In C.A. 734 of 1988, appellant instituted a Suit\t No.
\n3831 of 1985 in the Court of the Small Causes, Calcutta, for
\nthe  recovery of a sum of Rs.6,573.50p. on account of  snort
\ndeliveries of two consignments booked with the Respondent on
\n27.4.1984  and 24.7.1984 respectively, Ex-Saugar in  Central
\nRailway to Ramkrishtopur in Eastern Railway. Similar  objec-
\ntion  as to jurisdiction having been urged, the trial  Court
\nrejected  that\tobjection  and decreed the  suit.  This\t was
\nassailed before the High Court by the Respondent. The  Full-
\nBench,\tby its common-order, has held that the\ttrial  Court
\nhad  no jurisdiction and directed the return of\t the  plaint
\nfor presentation to the proper Court.\n<\/p>\n
    4.\tIn order that the contentions of Dr.  Shankar  Ghosh
\nurged  in support of these appeals are apprehended in  their
\nproper\tperspective,  it becomes necessary to refer  to\t and
\nnotice the legislative history of the provision. Section  14
\nof  the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act,  1961,\t substituted
\nthe  old  Section  80 by a new provision.  The\told  Section
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 80: suit for compensation for  injury
\n\t      to through booked traffic:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      444<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Notwithstanding  anything\t in  any   agreement
\n\t      purporting  to limit the liability of  Railway
\n\t      Administration  with respect to traffic  while
\n\t      on the Railway of the another  Administration,
\n\t      a\t suit for compensation for loss of the\tlife
\n\t      of, or personal injury to, a passenger, or for
\n\t      loss, destruction or deterioration of  animals
\n\t      or  goods where the passenger was or the\tani-
\n\t      mals  or\tgoods were booked through  over\t the
\n\t      Railways\tof two or more\tRailway\t Administra-
\n\t      tions,  may  be  brought\teither\tagainst\t the
\n\t      Railway Administration from which the  passen-
\n\t      gers obtained his pass or purchased his  tick-
\n\t      et,  or  to which the animals  or\t goods\twere
\n\t      delivered\t by  the consignor thereof,  as\t the
\n\t      case  may be, or against the Railway  Adminis-
\n\t      tration  on  whose Railway the  loss,  injury,
\n\t      destruction or deterioration occurred.”
\n\t      The new Section 80 substituted in 1961 by\t the
\n\t      amending Act provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “80.  Suits for Compensation: A suit for\tcom-
\n\t      pensation for loss of the life of, or personal
\n\t      injury  to, a passenger or for loss,  destruc-
\n\t      tion, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of
\n\t      animals or goods may be instituted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (a)  if\tthe passenger  was,  or\t the
\n\t      animals or goods were, booked from one station
\n\t      to another on the railway of the same  railway
\n\t      administration against that railways  adminis-
\n\t      tration;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (b)  if\tthe passenger  was,  or\t the
\n\t      animals or goods were, booked through over the
\n\t      railway of two or more railway  administration
\n\t      against the railway administration from  which
\n\t      the  passenger obtained his pass or  purchased
\n\t      his  ticket or to which the animals  or  goods
\n\t      were  delivered for carriage, as the case\t may
\n\t      be,  or against the railway administration  on
\n\t      whose railway the destination station lies, or
\n\t      the  loss,  injury,  destruction,\t damage\t  or
\n\t      deterioration occurred;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t     and,  in either case  the\tsuit
\n\t      may be instituted in a Court having  jurisdic-
\n\t      tion  over  the place at which  the  passenger
\n\t      obtained\this pass or purchased his ticket  or
\n\t      the  animals or goods were delivered for\tcar-
\n\t      riage, as the case may be, or
\n\t      445<\/span>
\n\t      over  the place in which the destination\tsta-
\n\t      tion  lies, or the loss  injury,\tdestruction,
\n\t      damage or deterioration occurred.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  changes brought about in the scheme of  the  provisions
\nare quite marked. The old Section did not deal with–liabil-
\nity  for  claims  in respect of goods carried  by  a  single
\nRailway.  It  concerned itself with goods etc.,\t carried  by
\nmore than one Railways or what, in the concerned jargon,  is
\ncalled\t“through  booked traffic” and provided that  a\tsuit
\ninter-alia  for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration  or
\nnondelivery could be brought against the Railway Administra-
\ntion  with which the booking had taken place or against\t the
\nRailway\t Administration\t of the delivery  station.  The\t old
\nsection\t spoke nothing of the places where such suits  could
\nbe laid. The choice of the forum was regulated by Section 20
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure or the relevant provisions of
\nthe  Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as the case may\t be.
\nThis Court in Union of India v. Ladu Lal Jain,<\/a> [1964] 3\t SCR
\n624 observed that the principal place of Railway Administra-
\ntion  can be said to be the place where the Railways can  be
\nsaid  to  carry on business for purposes of  clause  (a)  of
\nSection 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  principle behind the provisions of\tCls.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)  and\t(b)  of S. 20 is that  the  suit  be
\n\t      instituted  at a place where the defendant  be
\n\t      able   to\t defend\t the  suit   without   undue
\n\t      trouble.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ”\t …..\tUnion of India carries on the  busi-
\n\t      ness  of running railways and, can be sued  in
\n\t      the Court of the subordinate Judge of  Gauhati
\n\t      within  whose  territorial  jurisdiction\t the
\n\t      head-quarters  of one of the railways  run  by
\n\t      the Union is situated.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  was said in a case governed by the old  Section.\tDoes
\nthe  position continue to hold good even after the new\tSec-
\ntion 80 was substituted in place of the old?\n<\/p>\n
    the\t new  Section 80 (substituted by Act  39  of  1961),
\nhowever,  brought about far reaching changes in its  scheme,
\nthe  notable amongst them being three. The new Section\tmade
\nspecific reference to a certain class of suits having regard
\nto  their subject-matter, to be dealt with under  that\tSec-
\ntion. Secondly, the new Section also dealt with identity  of
\nthe  Railway Administrations which were made liable  to\t the
\nclaim
\n446<\/span>
\nand,  thirdly, the section specifically provided the  places
\nwhere such suits “may be instituted”. Referring generally to
\nthe scope of the changes brought about by the 1961 amendment
\nto  Chapter  VII of the Railways Act, 1890, this  Court,  in
\nUnion of India v. The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate,  Poona,
\nAIR<\/a> 1976 SC 879 observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  history  and the object with  which\t the
\n\t      radical provisions of the new Act were  intro-
\n\t      duced  bear testimony to change of the  nature
\n\t      of  the liability of the\trailway\t administra-
\n\t      tion.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “We, therefore, agree with the learned counsel
\n\t      for the respondent that under the new Act\t the
\n\t      liability of the Railway has been increased so
\n\t      as to take upon itself the responsibility of a
\n\t      common carrier.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t new comprehensiveness of the scheme of\t the  amend-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ments was one of the circumstances that commended itself  to
\nthe  High Court to persuade it to hold that the new  Section
\n80 in Chapter VII, constituted a complete and self-contained
\nspecial law as to the place of suing respecting suits envis-
\naged  by that Section derogating from the generality of\t the
\nprovisions  of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure  or
\nthe provisions touching the jurisdiction of the Small  Cause
\nCourts\tand  that with the enactment of the new\t Section  80
\nthere  was an implied repeal of those other  provisions\t re-
\nspecting such suits.\n<\/p>\n
    5.\tThe High Court took due notice of the fact that\t the
\nnew  Section  did not expressly provide that in\t respect  of
\nsuits  envisaged by it, the provisions of Section 20 of\t the
\nCode  of  Civil Procedure or Section 18\t of  the  Presidency
\nSmall  Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the case may be, shall  no
\nlonger\tbe applicable. The High Court took due note  of\t the
\nsituation emerging from this omission. It noticed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “the  new\t Section 80, no doubt, did  not\t ex-
\n\t      pressly  provide\tthat the said  provision  of
\n\t      Section 80 of the Act would override all other
\n\t      laws.  But Section 80 of the  Indian  Railways
\n\t      Act is in the nature of the special  provision
\n\t      applicable  only\tto  suits  for\tcompensation
\n\t      against the Railways.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The point is whether by enacting”  ….\t the
\n\t      suit  may be instituted” in the Courts  having
\n\t      jurisdiction over the places mentioned in\t the
\n\t      last part of Section 80 of the Indian Railways
\n\t      Act,  1890, the said Section of  the  Railways
\n\t      Act by
\n\t      447<\/span>
\n\t      implication overrides section 20 of the  Civil
\n\t      Procedure\t Code,\t1908 and Section 18  of\t the
\n\t      Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t High Court took into consideration what,  according
\nto it, was the real intention in enacting the new Section 80
\nand was persuaded to the view that the Section brought about
\nan  implied repeal of the other provisions as to the  juris-
\ndiction\t of  Courts by itself providing\t a  jurisdiction  to
\nthese suits. It was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “By  mentioning the Courts in which the  suits
\n\t      for  compensation may be filed, Section 80  of
\n\t      the Railways Act purports to deal with matters
\n\t      which  have been dealt with in Section  20  of
\n\t      the  Code\t and Section 18\t of  the  Presidency
\n\t      Small  Causes  Courts Act. These two  sets  of
\n\t      laws deal with the same subject of territorial
\n\t      jurisdiction  of\tCourts. We  are,  therefore,
\n\t      required\tto ascertain whether in\t respect  of
\n\t      suits  for compensation against the  Railways,
\n\t      the  intention  was to  override\tthe  general
\n\t      law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “We have already indicated that Section 80  of
\n\t      the  Railways Act was a particular or  special
\n\t      legislation.  Section 80 of the  Railways\t Act
\n\t      purports\tto deal with the subject  of  places
\n\t      for  instituting\tparticular  class  of  suits
\n\t      which was previously covered by Section 20  of
\n\t      the  Code which was a general  enactment.\t Two
\n\t      statutes cover the same field, i.e.,  territo-
\n\t      rial  jurisdiction. Mentioning for  the  first
\n\t      time in Section 80 of the Railways Act of\t the
\n\t      places  where  suits for compensation  may  be
\n\t      instituted  was itself introductive of  a\t new
\n\t      law implying a negative. When the same subject
\n\t      of  territorial  jurisdiction has\t been  dealt
\n\t      with  in\tthe  subsequent\t legislation  (i.e.,
\n\t      Section 80 of the Railways Act) the prior laws
\n\t      (Section 20 of the Code and Section 13 of\t the
\n\t      Presidency Small Cause Courts Act) on the same
\n\t      subject were not intended to subsist.”
\n\t      “In  other  words, Section 80  of\t the  Indian
\n\t      Railways Act by requiring something special to
\n\t      be done repealed by necessary implication\t the
\n\t      former general statute relating to territorial
\n\t      jurisdiction of Courts in so far as the  suits
\n\t      for  compensation\t against the  Railways\twere
\n\t      concerned.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Any other construction, according to the\tHigh
\n\t      Court, would lead
\n\t      448<\/span>
\n\t      to anomalies and render Section 80 a  surplus-
\n\t      age. High Court said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “If  it  was  to be held that  clause  (c)  of
\n\t      Section 20 of the Code still applied to  suits
\n\t      for  compensation against the  Railways,\tthen
\n\t      the cause of action for the purpose of  juris-
\n\t      diction of Courts would arise not only at\t the
\n\t      three  places mentioned in Section 80  of\t the
\n\t      Act  but\tat several other  places.  In  other
\n\t      words, the provisions of Section 80 of the Act
\n\t      relating to places where the suits for compen-
\n\t      sation  may be instituted, would be,  in\tthat
\n\t      event, surplusage and unnecessary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.\tIn the view of the High Court, the  distinction\t be-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tween  provisions in the New Section 80 on the one hand\t and
\nSection\t 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 18  of
\nthe Small Cause Courts Act on the other, assumed  particular
\nsignificance  as  qualifying  the  Court’s  jurisdiction  in
\nrespect\t of  a particular subject-matter  as  distinct\tfrom
\nthose  that relate to a Court’s territorial jurisdiction  or
\npecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section\t80 of the Railways Act,\t in  effect,
\n\t      limits  the application of Section 20  of\t the
\n\t      Code by specifying the Courts which shall have
\n\t      jurisdiction  over  the  suits  whose  subject
\n\t      matter  is the claim for compensation  against
\n\t      the  Railways  for loss of  life\tor  personal
\n\t      injury  to a passenger or\t loss,\tdestruction,
\n\t      damage,\tdeterioration  or  non-delivery\t  of
\n\t      animals  or goods. We have already  held\tthat
\n\t      Section  80 of the Act, in other words  is  in
\n\t      the  nature of a special provision in  respect
\n\t      of classes of suits mentioned in Section 80 of
\n\t      the Indian Railways Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7. Dr. Shankar Ghosh assailing the soundness of the High
\nCourt’s\t view, urged that the proposition on which its\tcon-
\nclusions  rest, if accepted, would render what was  intended
\nas  a mere an enabling entitlement to lose its character  as
\nsuch  and  become, on the contrary, a  limiting\t factor\t and
\nconvert\t a right into a liability. Dr. Ghosh said  that\t the
\nlegislative  intent was clear; it did not render Section  80
\nover-riding  by\t not expressly excluding Section 20  of\t the
\nCode  of  Civil Procedure. It expressly supplied,  says\t Dr.
\nGhosh,\t an   enabling\t provision   when   it\t chose\t the
\nexpression”   …..  may be instituted”. It is further\tcon-
\ntended\tthat  the doctrine of implied  repeal  was,  clearly
\ninapplicable to the situation.\n<\/p>\n
449<\/span><\/p>\n
Dr.  Ghosh  commended for acceptance the  reasoning  of\t the
\nAssam and Madras High Courts, in Assam Cold Storage v. Union
\nof  India, AIR<\/a> 1971 Assam 69 and Hindustan Machine fools  v.
\nUnion of India, AIR 1985 Madras 130, respectively, in  pref-
\nerence\tto  the\t views of the Calcutta,\t Bombay,  Delhi\t and
\nKarnataka  High\t Courts\t in Oghamal Chaudhury  v.  Union  of
\nIndia,\t[1974] CLJ 420; Union of India v. Indian  Hume\tPipe
\nCo.  Ltd., AIR 1981 Bombay 414; New India Assurance  Co.  v.
\nUnion  of  India, AIR<\/a> 1981 Delhi 135 and Union of  India  v.
\nC.R. Prabhanna, AIR<\/a> 1977 132 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    8. The thrust of the arguments of Dr. Ghosh is that\t the
\nconstruction  placed by the High Court ignores\tthe  crucial
\naspect\tthat  while the old Section 80 did  not\t render\t the
\ndestination  railway as such, liable to be sued if loss\t was
\nnot proved to have occurred there, the new Section, however,
\nrenders\t the destination Railway also liable even though  no
\nloss  occurred\tthere. The provision in the new\t Section  80
\nenabling  the  suit  to be instituted at the  place  of\t the
\ndestination  Railway, where no part of the cause  of  action
\nmight otherwise be shown to have arisen, was, it is urged, a
\nmere consequential provision–to give effect to the substan-
\ntive  provision, that the destination Railway was  also\t li-
\nable. Dr. Ghosh emphasised the expression “may be  institut-
\ned”  in Section 80 to reinforce his contention that  Section
\n80 did really expand the rights of and not seek to  restrict
\ntherein\t suitors. Learned counsel also emphasised that\tsec-
\ntion  80  did  not contain  any\t words\texpressly  excluding
\nclauses (a) and (b) of Section 20, Code of Civil  Procedure,
\nin  so\tfar as suits contemplated by Section  80  were\tcon-
\ncerned. The new Section 80, it is contended, did not  intend
\nto impair the choice of the forum afforded by Section 20  of
\nthe  Code  of Civil Procedure and that\tany  contrary  view,
\noffends settled principles of statutory construction guiding
\nthe matter. Learned counsel invited attention to the follow-
\ning  observations  in Ajay Kumar Banerjee & Others  etc.  v.
\nUnion of India & Others etc., [1984] 3 SCR 252 at page 282:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  general rule to be followed in  case  of
\n\t      conflict\tbetween\t two statutes  is  that\t the
\n\t      later  abrogates\tthe earlier  one.  In  other
\n\t      words,  a prior special law, would yield to  a
\n\t      later  general law, if either of the two\tfol-
\n\t      lowing conditions is satisfied:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i) The two are inconsistent with each other;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  There is some express reference  in\t the
\n\t      later to the earlier enactment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      450<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      If  either  of these two\tconditions  is\tful-
\n\t      filled,  the later law, even  though  general,
\n\t      would prevail.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and  submitted that even if, conversely, the  provisions  of
\nSection 80 are held to be a later special law, the principle
\nof  implied  repeal  could not be invoked as  there  was  no
\ninconsistency  between the two provisions and that,  on\t the
\ncontrary, both set of provisions could co-exist and prevail.
\nLearned counsel invited our attention to and relied upon the
\nfollowing  passage  in Shah Babulal Khimji v.  Jaya  Ben  D.
\nKania and Another,<\/a> [1982] 1 SCR 187:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We find ourselves in complete agreement\twith
\n\t      the  arguments  of Mr. Sorabjee  that  in\t the
\n\t      instant case S. 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1
\n\t      does not in any way abridge, interfere with or
\n\t      curb  the powers conferred on the Trial  Judge
\n\t      by  Clause  15  of the  Letters  Patent.\tWhat
\n\t      Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 does is
\n\t      merely to give an additional remedy by way  of
\n\t      an  appeal from the orders of the Trial  Judge
\n\t      to a larger Bench.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  learned counsel also placed reliance on  the  following
\nobservations  of  this\tCourt in  Municipal  Council,  Palai
\nv.T.J. Joseph and Others, [1964] 2 SCR 87 at page 98:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In order to ascertain whether there is repug-
\n\t      nancy  or\t not this Court has  laid  down\t the
\n\t      following\t principles  in Deep  Chand  v.\t The
\n\t      State of Uttar Pradesh,<\/a>:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   1.  Whether\tthere  is  direct   conflict
\n\t      between the two provisions;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   2.  Whether the legislature\tintended  to
\n\t      lay down an exhaustive code in respect of\t the
\n\t      subject matter replacing the earlier law;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.  Whether  the\ttwo  laws  occupy  the\tsame
\n\t      field.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9. Reliance was also placed on Section 21-A inserted  by
\nSection 4 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts (West  Bengal
\nAmendment) Act, 1980 which provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “21A.  Act  to override other  laws  including
\n\t      Letters  Patent:\tThe provisions of  this\t Act
\n\t      shall have effect notwithstanding
\n\t      451<\/span>
\n\t      anything\tto  the contrary in any\t other\tlaw,
\n\t      including in particular the Letters Patent  of
\n\t      the High Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
to contend that the construction opted for by the High Court
\nwould run in the teeth of this express provision.\n<\/p>\n
    10. Lastly, learned counsel invited our attention to the
\nfollowing passage in Crawford on Statutory construction:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “All  laws  are  presumed to  be\tpassed\twith
\n\t      deliberation,  and with full knowledge of\t all
\n\t      existing cases on the same subject, it is\t but
\n\t      reasonable  to conclude that the\tLegislature,
\n\t      in passing a statute, did not intend to inter-
\n\t      fere with or abrogate any former law  relating
\n\t      to  the  same  matter,unless  the\t  repugnancy
\n\t      between  the two is irreconcilable.  Bowen  v.
\n\t      Lease,  5 Will 225. It is a rule, says Sedwick
\n\t      that a general statute without negative  words
\n\t      will not repeal the particular provisions of a
\n\t      former  one, unless the two acts are  irrecon-
\n\t      cilably inconsistent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     (p.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      633)
\n\t      “And,  as\t we have already  suggested,  it  is
\n\t      essential\t that  the  new\t statute  cover\t the
\n\t      entire  subject matter of the  old;  otherwise
\n\t      there  is no indication. of the intent of\t the
\n\t      Legislature  to abrogate the old\tlaw.  Conse-
\n\t      quently,\tthe  latter enactment will  be\tcon-
\n\t      structed\tas  continuation of  the  old  one.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (624)<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was urged that repeal by implication is not to  be\tpre-
\nsumed and that, on the contrary, there is always presumption
\nagainst\t a repeal by implication. In order that there  be  a
\nrepeal by implication, there should be a clear, irreconcila-
\nble  conflict  between the two sets of\tprovisions  and\t the
\nlater  enactment should be an exhaustive code in  itself  in
\nrespect\t of  the subject matter. On these  submissions,\t Dr.
\nGhosh says that the view taken by the High Court is  clearly
\nunsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
    11.\t The contention emphasised is that where  a  statute
\nmerely\trecognises  a right pre-existing in  common-law\t and
\nprovides  a  remedy, such a remedy, unless the\tstatute\t ex-
\npressly\t bans or excludes other remedies, could only  be  an
\nadditional or concurrent one open to an election.
\nIt  is true that where a statute does not itself bring\tinto
\nbeing a
\n452<\/span>
\nnew  right  not\t a pre-existing right and  also\t provides  a
\nremedy\ttherefore so however that the right and\t the  remedy
\ncannot\tbe said to have been brought into existence for\t the
\nfirst  time uno-flatu, such a remedy would not generally  be
\nheld  to be exclusive but only an additional and  concurrent
\none, along with the pre-existing remedies, unless there\t are
\nexpress indications to the contrary in the statute itself.
\n    In Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph,<\/a> [1964] 2 SCR
\n87,  this Court considered the tests of\t repugnancy  applied
\nunder  Article 254(2) of the Constitution, relevant  in\t the
\nexamination  of\t circumstances\tbringing  about\t an  implied
\nrepeal.\t Strictly speaking the examination of  the  question
\nwhether an act of Parliament prevails against the law enact-
\ned by a State under Article 254, does not really involve any
\nquestion  of repeal. In Zaver Bhai Amaidas v. State of\tBom-
\nbay, AIR 1954 SC 752 this Court applied the test conversely,
\nof  the principle of implied repeal to cases  of  repugnancy
\nunder Article 254(2). It was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It is true, as already pointed out, that on a
\n\t      question\tunder Art. 25(1) whether an  Act  of
\n\t      Parliament  prevails  against  a\tlaw  of\t the
\n\t      State,  no question of repeal arises, but\t the
\n\t      principle on which the rule of implied  repeal
\n\t      rests,  namely, that if the subject-matter  of
\n\t      the  later legislation is identical with\tthat
\n\t      of the earlier, so that they cannot both stand
\n\t      together, then the earlier is repealed by\t the
\n\t      later enactment, will be equally applicable to
\n\t      a\t question trader Art. 254(2) where the\tfur-
\n\t      ther  legislation by Parliament is in  respect
\n\t      of the same matter as that of the State law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  doctrine  of implied repeal is based on  the  postulate
\nthat the legislature which is presumed to know the  existing
\nstate  of the law did not intend to create any confusion  by
\nretaining  conflicting provisions. Courts, in applying\tthis
\ndoctrine, are supposed merely to give effect to the legisla-
\ntive  intent  by examining the object and scope of  the\t two
\nenactments. But in a conceivable case, the very existence of
\ntwo  provisions may by itself, and without more, lead to  an
\ninference  of mutual irreconcilability if the later  set  of
\nprovisions is by itself a complete code with respect to\t the
\nsame  matter. In such a case the actual detailed  comparison
\nof the two sets of provisions may not be necessary. It is  a
\nmatter of legislative intent that the two sets of provisions
\nwere  not expected to be applied simultaneously. Section  80
\nis a special provi-\n<\/p>\n
453<\/span><\/p>\n
sion.  It deals with certain class of suits  distinguishable
\non the basis of their particular subject-matters.
\n    The\t High  Court  has come to the  conclusion  that\t new
\nSection\t 80 made a conscious departure on the law as to\t the
\nplace of suing in respect of suits of a particular  subject-
\nmatter\tenvisaged by that Section. The High Court  has\theld
\nthat  the  new Section 80 is a\tselfcontained  provision  in
\nregard\tto the choice of fora for such suits.  According  to
\nthe  High  Court, there was no need for the  legislature  to
\nspecify the places of suing which would otherwise be covered
\nby  Section 20 C.P.C. unless the special prescription as  to
\nplaces\tof suing was considered to be necessary–in  deroga-
\ntion  to the general law as contained in Sec. 20 CPC or\t the
\nprovisions in the Small cause Courts Act.\n<\/p>\n
    As\tto the words “may be instituted” occurring  in\tthat
\nSection, the High Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The use of the expression ‘may be instituted’
\n\t      in Section 80 of the Railways Act was  equiva-
\n\t      lent  to\t‘shall be  instituted’.\t Section  80
\n\t      conferred right to institute suits for compen-
\n\t      sation  against  the Railways  for  breach  of
\n\t      their  obligations  for  carrying\t passengers,
\n\t      animals  or goods specified in Chapter VII  of
\n\t      the  Indian Railways Act. Both the  obligation
\n\t      on  the part of the Railways and the right  of
\n\t      the  consignor and the consignee to  institute
\n\t      suits  are now statutory in their nature.\t The
\n\t      clear  intendment of the Legislature was\tthat
\n\t      it  would be obligatory for the plaintiffs  to
\n\t      institute\t suits only in the Courts  mentioned
\n\t      in Section 80 of the Railways Act for enforce-
\n\t      ment  of the claims for  compensation  against
\n\t      the Railways.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12. After a consideration of the matter, we are inclined
\nto the view that the reasoning of and the conclusion reached
\nby  the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court that  the\t new
\nSection\t 80 is a selfcontained provision are sound  and\t re-
\nquire to be preferred to the view expressed by the Assam and
\nthe Madras High Courts. The view of the Full-Bench is to  be
\npreferred  having regard to the weight and preponderance  of
\nthe  relevant  interpretatory criteria. No  appeal,  in\t our
\nopinion, could be made to Section 21A of the State Amendment
\nto  the Small Cause Courts Act either, in as much  as,\tthat
\nprovision  cannot  be understood to have  been\tintended  to
\ncover a situation of the present
\n454<\/span>
\ntype.  It does not exclude a special law applicable  to\t and
\ngoverning a distinct class of subject matter intended to  be
\ncovered by that special law.\n<\/p>\n
    In the result, for the fore-going reasons, these appeals
\nfail  and are dismissed; but in the  circumstances,  without
\nany directions as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n455<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 104, 1989 SCR (3) 440 Author: M Venkatachalliah Bench: Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J) PETITIONER: RATAN LAL ADUKIA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/07\/1989 BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRatan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-13T21:34:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T21:34:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989\"},\"wordCount\":4379,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989\",\"name\":\"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T21:34:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-13T21:34:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989","datePublished":"1989-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T21:34:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989"},"wordCount":4379,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989","name":"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T21:34:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratan-lal-adukia-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-19-july-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ratan Lal Adukia & Anr vs Union Of India on 19 July, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230124\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}