- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Soorajmull Nagarmull v. State Of West Bengal .
Factual and Procedural Background
Messrs Soorajmull Nagarmull (“the appellants”) were tenants of three warehouses and their appurtenant vacant land, popularly known as the Shamnagar Jute Godowns, owned by Sri Hanuman Seva Trust. The warehouses were used to store the appellants’ jute. On 17 August 1943 the warehouses were requisitioned under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, and possession was taken on 21 September 1943.
Because the owner and the Government could not agree on compensation, an arbitrator was appointed under Section 19(1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Sri Hanuman Seva Trust sought compensation as owner. The appellants sought approximately Rs 1 lakh for alleged loss of business, damage to business, and expenses incurred in moving 18,000 maunds of jute and iron implements.
On 13 December 1947 the arbitrator rejected the appellants’ claim, holding that they failed to prove any actual loss. The appellants appealed to the Calcutta High Court, valuing their claim at Rs 1,50,000. The State of West Bengal objected, arguing that Section 19 and Rule 19 barred the appeal because the award was for an amount not exceeding Rs 5,000. The High Court accepted that objection and dismissed the appeal. The appellants then obtained special leave and appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under Section 19(1)(f) of the Defence of India Act, 1939, read with the second proviso to Rule 19, an appeal lies to the High Court when the arbitrator awards no compensation (i.e., Rs 0).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Section 19(1)(f) confers a general right of appeal against all awards; the statutory bar applies only where
some amount
is awarded but that amount is below Rs 5,000. - Because no compensation at all was awarded, the restriction contained in Section 19(1)(f) and the second proviso to Rule 19 should not apply.
- Limitations on a statutory right of appeal must be strictly construed.
State of West Bengal’s Arguments
- The combined effect of Section 19(1)(f), Section 19(3)(c) and the second proviso to Rule 19 bars any appeal where the amount of compensation awarded does not exceed Rs 5,000, which necessarily includes awards of Rs 0.
- The arbitrator is not a court subordinate to the High Court; therefore, an appeal exists only if the statute expressly permits it, and the statute withholds that permission in the present circumstances.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began by characterising an appeal as a purely statutory right: since the arbitrator appointed under Section 19 is not a court subordinate to the High Court, no appeal lies unless expressly authorised by statute.
Section 19(1)(f) grants an appeal against an arbitrator’s award except where the amount awarded does not exceed
the ceiling fixed by rules made under the Act. The second proviso to Rule 19 sets that ceiling at Rs 5,000 in lump sum (or Rs 250 per month).
The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the bar applies only when the arbitrator awards some compensation below Rs 5,000. It reasoned that an award of Rs 0 necessarily “does not exceed Rs 5,000,” bringing it squarely within the statutory prohibition. Any other reading would require the Court to rewrite the proviso, something it cannot do.
While acknowledging that the rule is unusual—because the right to appeal turns solely on the amount awarded rather than on the amount claimed—the Court emphasised that the judiciary cannot extend an appeal right that the legislature has withheld.
Holding and Implications
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to entertain the appeal, holding that the statutory bar in the second proviso to Rule 19 applies even when the arbitrator awards no compensation.
Implications: The decision clarifies that under the Defence of India Act, 1939, an award of zero compensation categorically falls within the “does not exceed Rs 5,000” threshold, foreclosing any appellate remedy. The ruling affects only parties operating under that statutory framework and sets no broader precedent beyond interpreting the specific bar in Section 19 and Rule 19.
Shah, J.— Messrs Soorajmull Nagarmull — who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellants — were tenants of three warehouses and vacant land appurtenant thereto — popularly known as the Shamnagar Jute Godowns — belonging to Sri Hanuman Seva Trust. The warehouses were used for storage of jute belonging to the appellants. By an order dated 17-8-1943, and issued under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the warehouses were requisitioned and possession thereof was taken on 21-9-1943. As the amount of compensation payable to the owner of the warehouses could not be fixed by agreement an arbitrator was appointed under Section 19(1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Before the arbitrator, Sri Hanuman Seva Trust claimed compensation as owners of the warehouses. The appellant claimed compensation for loss of earnings, “damage to business” and cost of removal of 18,000 maunds of jute and some iron implements, which the appellants claimed had to be removed in consequence of the order of requisition. The appellants estimated the compensation at Rs one lakh. The arbitrator by his order dated 13-12-1947, observed that the appellants had failed to prove any actual loss of business in consequence of the requisition, and rejected the claim of the appellants.
2. Against the order passed by the arbitrator an appeal was preferred to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The appellants valued the claim at Rs 1,50,000. At the hearing of the appeal, the State of West Bengal contended that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 19(1)(f) and (g) and Section 19(3)(c) of the Defence of India Act and the 2nd proviso to Rule 19 framed under the Defence of India Act. The High Court upheld the contention raised by the State of West Bengal and dismissed the appeal. With special leave the appellants have appealed to this Court.
3. Under clause (1) of Section 19 of the Defence of India Act 35 of 1939, it is provided, insofar as it is material:
“Where under Section 19-A or by or under any rule made under this Act any action is taken of the nature described in sub-section (2) of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, there shall be paid compensation, the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say:
* * *
(f) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against an award of the arbitrator except in cases where the amount thereof does not exceed an amount prescribed in this behalf by rule made by the Central Government.
(g) Save as provided in this section and in any rules made thereunder, nothing in any law for the time being in force shall apply to arbitrations under this section.”
Sub-section (3), insofar as it is material, provides:
“(3) In particular and without any prejudice to the generality of
foregoing power, such rules may prescribe:
* * *
(c) the maximum amount of an award against which no appeal shall lie.”
By notification dated 22-3-1945, Rules were framed under Section 19 relating to arbitration for settlement of compensation. Rule 19 of the Rules provided:
“19. Any appeal against the award of the Arbitrator shall be presented within six weeks from the date of receipt by the Collector or the party by whom the appeal is preferred of the copy of the award sent under Rule 17:
Provided that
* * *
Provided further that no appeal shall lie against an award made under these Rules where the amount of compensation awarded does not exceed Rs 5000 in lump or Rs 250 per mensem.”
The arbitrator appointed under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act is not a court or a tribunal subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. By the Defence of India Act a right to appeal against the award of the arbitrator is conferred, but that right is restricted in the manner prescribed by the Rules. It is provided by the second proviso to Rule 19 that an appeal shall not lie against an award where the amount of compensation does not exceed Rs 5000.
4. The claim of the appellants was rejected by the arbitrator and they were not awarded any compensation. Mr Vishwanatha Sastri appearing on behalf of the appellants, contends that by clause (f) of Section 19(1) the legislature provided a right of appeal against all awards and has imposed a restriction only in those cases where some amount is awarded but the amount so awarded is less than Rs 5000. Counsel submits that the restriction limiting the right of appeal must be strictly construed. He says that where for any reason no compensation at all is awarded the bar contained in clause (f) of Section 19(1) and the second proviso to Rule 19 would not apply. In our judgment, there is no force in that contention. An appeal is a creature of statute. The arbitrator not being a court subordinate to the High Court, an appeal would lie only if it is expressly so provided. The legislature has provided that where the amount of compensation awarded does not exceed Rs 5000 no appeal shall lie against the award. The rule does not contemplate that the bar to the maintainability of the appeal will be effective only if some amount is awarded but the compensation so awarded is less than Rs 5000. If the arbitrator rejects the claim and refuses to award anything the case would, in our judgment, fall within the 2nd proviso to Rule 19 as being one where the amount of compensation awarded does not exceed Rs 5000.
5. The second proviso to Rule 19 enacts a rule of which a parallel is difficult to find. The right to appeal does not depend upon the claim made by the claimant either before the acquiring authority or the arbitrator or before the High Court: it depends solely upon the amount of compensation awarded by the arbitrator. But, however, unusual the rule may appear to be, it would not be open to the court to extend the right to appeal and to enable a claimant whose claim has been rejected completely to appeal to the High Court. The right to appeal is exercisable only if the amount awarded exceeds Rs 5000.
6. In that view of the case, the High Court was right in not entertaining the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Alert