Dharmpal Sinha and B.P. Singh, JJ.@mdashThe Appellant herein is United Commercial Bank which was one of the creditors of an undertaking
known as the Britannia Engineering Company Limited which had its unit at Mokameh. The said unit of the aforesaid company was taken over by
the Central Government under the Britannia Engineering Company Limited (Mokameh Unit) and the Arthur Butler and Company (Muzaffarpur)
Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1978 (Act No. 41 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). u/s 3 of the Act, the
Mokameh Unit and the right, title and interest of Britannia Engineering Company in relation to the Mokameh unit stood transferred to and vested in
the Central Government. u/s 15 of the Act, the Central Government was required to appoint a Commisioner of Payments for the purpose of
disbursing the amount payable under Sections 7 and 8 to the concerned companies. u/s 21 of the Act, the procedure was prescribed for
entertaining the claims and their disposal. The Commissioner of Payments after following the procedure prescribed could admit or reject the claim
in whole or in part. Sub-section 7 of Section 21 of the Act is relevant which provices as follows:
A claimant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner may prefer an appeal against the decision to the principal Court of original
jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Mokameh unit or, as the case may be, the registered office of Arthur Butler and
Company is situated.
Provided that where a person, who is a Judge of a High Court is appointed to be the Commissioner, such appeal shall lie to the High Court of the
State in which the registered office of Britannia Engineering Company or, as the case may be, Arthur Butler and Company is situated, and such
appeal shall be heard and disposed of by not less than two judges of that High Court.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Payments dated 27.2.1987 whereby the claim of the Appellant
Bank was partly admitted. The Bank is aggrieved by the rejection of a part of their claim.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 at the threshold has challenged the maintainability of this appeal. He submitted that if the
Appellant-Bank was aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner, it could prefer an appeal to the principal Court of original jurisdiction within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction Mokameh unit was situated. According to him, such an appeal could be filed in the Court of the District Judge
at Patna. He therefore, submitted that this appeal filed before the High Court should not be entertained.
4. Mr. K.D. Chatterji appearing on behalf of the Appellant Bank submitted that the words used in the section are ""the principal Court of original
jurisdiction"". The words used are not ""ordinary original civil Jurisdiction"". He submitted that since the High Court of Patna also is vested with
original jurisdiction in some matters, such an appeal is maintainable before this Court as well because the High Court must also be deemed to be a
Court of original jurisdiction and the Mokameh unit is situated within its jurisdiction.
5. The submission urged on behalf of the Appellant, is, no doubt, ingenious, but cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court
reported in Raja Soap Factory and Others Vs. S.P. Shantharaj and Others, Moreover, the proviso to Sub-section 7 does not permit such a
construction, and where an appeal must lie before a High Court has been clearly specified. In the instant case, we are informed that the
Commissioner of Payments was a former officer belonging to the Bihar Judical Service. An affidavit to this effect has been filed by Respondent
No. 2. Obviously, therefore, this case is not covered by proviso to Sub-section 7 of Section 21.
6. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellant Bank has preferred this appeal under a misconception of law, may be bonafide believing that
an appeal lay to this Court since this Court also has original jurisdiction in some matters. Having regard to the provision of Sub-section 7 of Section
21 of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court aforesaid, we are of the view that this appeal is not maintainable and must be dismissed as
such.
7. In these circumstances, we refuse to entertain this appeal and direct the Registry to return the memo of appeal and the connected papers to
counsel for the Appellant for presentation before the appropriate forum.
It will be open to the Appellant to urge before the forum that it was bonafide pursuing its remedy before another Court.
8. This appeal is not maintainable.