Holding

A review petition against an appealable order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is maintainable where no appeal has been filed, and Rule 32 of the 1989 Procedure Rules is repugnant to the Act and cannot limit the Tribunal's review power.

Summary

Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises claimed a refund of excess freight paid to Indian Railways and filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which dismissed the claim. The appellant filed a review petition under Section 18(3)(f) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, but the Tribunal dismissed it. The appellant then appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 23, which held the review petition was not maintainable because Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 limits review to non‑appealable orders. The Supreme Court examined whether a review petition is maintainable against an appealable order where no appeal has been filed. It held that Section 18(3)(f) gives the Tribunal the same review powers as a civil court under the CPC, making the review petition maintainable, and that Rule 32 is repugnant to the statute. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, restored the appeals, and remitted the matters for merits determination.

Issues considered

Whether a review petition is maintainable before the Railway Claims Tribunal against an order that is appealable under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, when no appeal has been filed.
Whether Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, which restricts review to non‑appealable orders, is consistent with the statutory provisions of the Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 114, s. Order XLVII Rule I
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987s. 16, s. 18(3)(f), s. 23

Subjects

Railway Claims Tribunalreview petitionappealabilitystatutory interpretationRule 32Civil Procedure CodeSection 18(3)(f)Section 23natural justice

Judgment

A KALPATARU AGROFOREST ENTERPRISES
v.
UNION OF INDIA

MARCH 5, 2002

B [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987:·

Ss. I8(3)(j) and 23 r/w r. 32 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure}
C Rules, 1989-Railway Claims Tribunal-Power of review-Held, Tribunal
has the same power as are vested in civil court under CPC-Against appealab/e
orders of Tribunal from which an appeal lies but no appeal is filed, the review
petition is maintainable before the rribuna,l~In the instant case, no appeal
was filed against the order in question though u!s 23. It is appealable-
D Consequently, the review petition is maintainable before the Tribunal-Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908-s.114-0rder 47, Rule I-Review.

Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989:
r. 32-Validity of-Railway Claims Tribunal-Review ofdecisions-Held,
Rule 32 restricts the scope of power of review vested uls 18/3(j) of the Act to
E non-appealable orders and leaves out from its ambit orders which are
appealable u/s 23 of the Act though such orders could be reviewed in view of
s.114 and Order 47, Rule•/, CPC-To that extent Rule 32 runs counter to
s. J8(3)(j) of the Act-As Rule 32 is repugnant to statutory provision of clause
(j) of sub-section (3) of s.18, it is bad arid cannot be allowed to override the
F specific provision of the Act-High Court erred in not considering the appeal
on merits on the ground that review petition was not maintainable under Rule
32-0rder ofHigh Court set aside-Matter remitted to High Court for decision
on merits-Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987-ss.18(3)(j) and 23-Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908-s. ll 4 and Order 47, R. J.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1901 of
2002. -~

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2000 of the Madhya Pradesh \
High Court in M.A. No. 160 of 1999.

WITH
H 298
KALPATARU AGROFORESTENTERPRISES v. U.0.1. 299

C.A. Nos. 1902, 1903, 1904 and 1906/2002. A
Vibhu Bakhru and P.N. Puri for the Appellants.

P.S. Narasimha, P. Sridhar and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
ORDER
Issue notice in SLP (C) 5519, 5521°CC Nos. 1911and2228/2002. Mr.
P.S. Narasimha, Advocate, on behalf of Ms. Anil Katiyar Advocate, accepts
notice for the Union of India.
>· Delay is condoned.
c
Leave is Granted in all the SLPs.
These five appeals arise out of the orders of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in different Misc. Appeals on October 30, 2000.
The claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) is D
the appellant.

The common question to be considered by us relates to maintainability
of a review petition before the Tribunal against an appealable order passed
by it.
E
To appreciate the issue involved it would suffice to refer to the facts
in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4413/2001. The appellant transported
bamboo chips through Indian Railways to different mills in India. It is alleged
that higher freight was paid by it to the Railways on the basis of rationalisation
of the fares, on the ground that transportation would be by a longer route
than the direct route. In fact for the transportation of goods a direct shorter F
route was adopted by the Railways. Accordingly, it made a claim for refund
of Rs. 54, l 23 being the excess amount paid to the railways, by filing O.A.
No. 391 of 1995 in the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal
dismissed the refund claim on December 10, 1997. The appellant filed a G
review petition against that order before the Tribunal. The revie.w petition
was dismissed on October 27, 1998. Dissatisfied with the order passed on the
review petition, the appellant filed Misc. Appeal No. 160/99 in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 23 of the Act. On October
30.2000, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who decided the appeal,
took the view that the review petition itself was not maintainable in view of H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules') so no relief could be granted to the appellant
against the order of the Tribunal passed on the review petition.

Mr. Vibhu Bal<hru, the learned counsel for the appellant in all the
appeals, contends that Section 18(3)(f) of the Act specifically provid(ls that
B the Tribunal shall have the same power as are vested in a Civil Court under
the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to reviewing of its decision, therefore,
Rule 32 is contrary to the Act as such the learned Judge ought.not to have
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the review petition was not
maintainable. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, the learned counsel for the Union of India,
C contends that though Rule 32 of the Rules appears to be in conflict with the ...J
statutory provision it was intended to confine the power of review to orders
against which no appeal is provided under Section 23 of the Act.

To examine the rival contentions and to ascertain the scope of the
power of the Claims Tribunal to entertain a review petition, it will be useful
D . to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The provision of
the Act dealing with power of review of the Tribunal is clause (f) of sub-
section (3) of Section 18 which reads as follows :-

"18. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal - -"
(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid
E down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1.908 (~ of 1908), but shall be
gui~ed by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other
provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall
have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of
places and times of its enquiry.
F (2) *** *** ***
(3) The Claims Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging
its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil
..court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while
trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :-

r
G
(a) to (e) *** *** ***
(f) reviewing its decisions;

(g) to (i) *** *** *** \
H. From the perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 18 it is evident that in
KALPATARU AGROFOREST ENTERPRISES v. U.O.l. 30 l

deciding the claims, the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in A
Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC), but it shall be guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act and the
rules it may regular its own procedure including the fixation of places and
time of its enquiry. However, sub-section (3) specifically provides that in
respect of the matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) the Tribunal shall have B
the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the CPC, while trying
the suit, for the purposes of discharging its function under the Act. Clause (f),
quoted above refers to reviewing of its own decision. It is, therefore, clear
that in reviewing its decisions the Tribunal has the same power as are vested
in the civil court under the CPC. Here, it would be apt to refer to the provisions
',.- of the CPC dealing with the review-Section 114 and Order XL VII, Rule I of C
the Civil Procedure Code.

Section 114 is in the following terms :-

"114. Review-Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself
aggrieved - D
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this
Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

(b) by a decree or order from. which no appeal is allowed by this
Court, or
E
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may
apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree
or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it
thinks fit."
F
Rule I, Order XL VII which specifies the types of the orders and the
conditions under which they may be reviewed, reads thus:

"I. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering
himself aggrieved -

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from G
which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within
his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when
the decree was passed or order make, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of
B judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) *** *** ***
Explanation - XXXXXX"
From a combined reading of Section 114 and Rule I of Order XL VII,
C it is clear that the decree or order from which an a~eal is allowed but from
which no appeal has been filed, can be reviewed. It follows that against the
appealable orders of the Tribunal from which an appeal lies but no appeal is
filed, the review petition is maintainable before the Tribunal. In the instant
cases, admittedly, no appeal was filed against the order in question though
D under Section 23 it is appealable, consequently the review petition is
maintainable before the Tribunal.

It would be necessary to refer Rule 32 of the Rules on which the High
Court has placed reliance. It is in the following terms :

"32. Review of decision-(!) Any person considering himself
E aggrieved by any order of the Tribunal from which no appeal is
allowed and who on account of some mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for review
of a final order not being an interlocutory order, to the Tribunal." •
F
This rule says that any person considering himself aggrieved by any
order of the Tribunal from which no appeal is allowed and who on account
of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the other made against him,
may apply for review of a final ordh not being an interlocutory order, to the
G Tribunal.

It is thus apparent that Rule 32 restricts the scope of power of review
vested under Section 18(3)(f) of the Act to non-appealable orders and leaves
out from its ambit orders which are appealable under Section 23 of the Act
4
though such orders could be reviewed in view of Section 114 and Rule l of
H Order XLVII of CPC. To the extent indicated above, Rule 23 runs counter
KALPATARU AGROFORESTENTERPRISES v. U.0.1. 303
to Section 18(3)(f) of the Act. As Rule 32 is repugnant to the statutory A
provision of clause (f) of sub-section (3) of Section 18, it is certainly bad and
in no case can it be allowed to override the specific provision of the Act. In
this view of the matter, the High Court erred in not considering the appeal
of the appellant on merits on the ground that the review petition was not
maintainable under Rule 32.
B
For these reasons, we set aside the orders under challenge in these
appeals, restore the appeals to the file of the High Court and remit the cases
to the High Court to decide them on merits in accordance with law.

The appeals, are allowed in the above terms. No costs.
c
R.P. Appeals allowed.