Kolse Patil, J. - (1.) BY these applications, the applicants pray for the transfer of their applications for claims pending before the various Claims Tribunals to Bombay for various reasons of convenience.
(2.) THESE applications under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure are being disposed of by this common judgment as the point involved for my consideration is common The applications are being vehemently opposed firstly on the ground that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'M.A.C.T.') is not a civil court for the purpose of Section 24 of the Code and secondly that it is not a court subordinate to the High Court. According to the Respondents, the Division Bench of this Court in Khairunnissa A.K. Saddiki v. Municipal Corporation, Bombay : 1966 ACJ 37 (Bombay), has held that M.A.C.T. is not a civil court. The question involved before the Division Bench was whether the application before the M.A.C.T. was a suit or otherwise and whether the applicant was under an obligation to give notice to the Bombay Municipal Corporation as a condition precedent for filing the said application. The learned Judges in that case held that the application was not a civil suit and consequently the notice was not a condition precedent. It has, however, to be noted that much water, thereafter, has flown under the bridge and the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goe : 1983 ACJ 123 (SC), has now held that the M.A.C.T. for the purpose of Section 25 of the Code is a civil court. The Supreme Court there, was also dealing with the transfer of an application for accident claim under Section 25 of the Code as in the present case. This Court (in Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 1986) has also observed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goel : 1983 ACJ 123 (SC) and of the Karnataka Division Bench in Noreen R. Srikantaiah v. L. Dasarath Ramaiah : 1985 ACJ 628 (Karnataka), the objection to the transfer has to be rejected. The learned single Judge has further held that the M.A.C.T. is also a civil court for the purpose of Section 24 of the Code. He, therefore, overruled the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents in that application. It is, therefore, clear that Bhagwati Devi's case : 1983 ACJ 123 (SC), now puts the point outside the pale of controversy. Although the matters there arose in the context of the power of the court under Section 25 of the Code, to transfer suits and other proceedings, inter alia, from one 'civil court' in one State to the other 'civil court' in any other State, the law laid down then will equally apply to the proceedings under Section 24 of the Code.
(3.) THE second question is whether the M.A.C.T. as a 'court' is subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 24. The circumstances that the M.A.C.T. is held to be a 'civil court' should be sufficient to answer this question in the affirmative.;