- (1.) This Rule has been referred to the Division Bench as it involves a point of law of some importance.
(2.) The point arises in this way. The petitioners, who are the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India, instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta praying for a decree for Rs.3105.33, and interest and other reliefs against the opposite party, the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at No.10, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay. The Company also carries on its business at No.5, Clive Row, Calcutta-1. The case of the petitioners was that the petitioner No.1 booked 277400 bags of Urea and 2774 pieces of Empty Bags under 3 Bills of Lading in the vessel known as s.s. Jaganjali owned by the opposite party company and loaded the same at Ports Chinhae and Ulsan (Korea) for transshipment to any Indian port or ports and for discharge at the ports of Vishakhapattanam and Calcutta. It was alleged that there was short loading of 293 empty original containers and also of 2774 pieces of empty spare bags. The petitioners, accordingly, claimed the said sum on account of compensation. It is not necessary for us to state the defence of the opposite party, for we are only concerned with the question whether the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta had jurisdiction to try the said suit. The contention of the opposite party before the learned Trial Judge was that as the suit was in the nature of a maritime action, the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction, for such actions are within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Trial Judge upheld the said contention of the opposite party and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the petitioners moved an application under S. 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act before the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The learned Judges of the Full Bench, however, took the view that the application was not maintainable and, accordingly, they dismissed the same. Hence this Rule.
(3.) In this Rule we are concerned with the only point whether the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. Prima facie, it seems that the action being a maritime action, it comes within the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. The said jurisdiction was first created by the Charter establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in the year, 1774. By clause 26 of the said Charter, the Supreme Court was made a Court of Admiralty, in and for the provinces, countries and districts of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and all other territories and islands adjacent thereto. The Supreme Court had full power and authority to take cognizance of, hear, examine, try and determine all causes civil and maritime, and all pleas of contracts, debts exchanges, policies of assurance, accounts, charter parties agreements, loading of ships, and all matters and contracts, which in any manner whatsoever related to freight, or money due for ships hired and let out, transport money, maritime usury and bottomry or to extortions, trespass injuries, complaints, demands and matters civil and maritime, whatsoever between the merchants, owners and proprietors of ships and vessels employed or used within the jurisdiction aforesaid, or between others contracted, done, had or commenced in, upon or by the sea, or public rivers or ports, creeks, harbours, and places over flown etc., throughout the said three provinces, countries or district of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and all the said territories or islands adjacent thereunto and dependent thereupon the cognizance whereof did belong to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, as the same was used and exercised in that part of Great Britain called England together with all the singular their incidents emergent and dependencies annexed and connexed causes, whatsoever, and to proceed summarily therein with all possible dispatch, according to the course of Admiralty of that part of Great Britain called England without the strict formalities of law, considering only the truth of the fact and the equity of the case.;