Suits by or Against Government

Suits by or against
Government
Fact of the case
A Govt servant, residing at Kollam &
employed at Kozhikode , files a suit
against Government for arrears for salary
in a court at Kollam after giving notice to
the Collector of Kollam, as per Sec 80
CPC.
Legal Issue Involved
Whether the court at Kollam is
competent to try the suit under
section 79 of CPC?
Suit by or Against Government
Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section 79 to Section 82 lays down
procedure where cases are brought by or
against the government or public official
Legal Reasoning
Section 79
In a suit by or against the Government, the
authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant,
as the case may be, shall be?
(a) in the case of a suit by or against the Central
Government, the Union of India, and
(b) in the case of a suit by or against a State
Government, the State.
For a better understanding of Section 79 of the
Civil Procedure Code, it is appropriate to further
fragment the Section into various subtopics, such
as Section 79’s jurisdiction and the establishment
of suits against railways, which will be addressed
in the next section of this article.
Section 79 specifies the process for bringing suits
against or by the government, but it does not
address the rights and obligations enforceable by
or against the government entity.
In the case of Jehangir v. Secretary of State, it was
pointed out that this section does not include a cause of
action, but rather declares the procedure to be followed
when the cause of action occurs.
JURISDICTION
Only the court in whose local limits the cause of action
has occurred and have jurisdiction to prosecute the case
under Section 79; otherwise, it cannot.
In Dominion of India v. RCKC Nath & Co., it was
determined that terms like “dwell,” “reside,” and “carry on
business” found in Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Code do
not apply to the government.
Section 80
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-s. (2), no suit
shall be instituted against the Government (including
the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir)
or against a public officer in respect of any act
purporting to be done by such public officer in his
official capacity, until the expiration of two months
next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or
left at the office of
(a) In the case of a suit against the Central
Government except where it relates to a railway, a
Secretary to the Government;
(b) In the case of a suit against the Central
Government where it relates to a railway. General
Manager of that Railway;
(c) In the case of a suit against any other State
Government a Secretary to that Government or the
Collector of the District: and, in the case of public
officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating
the cause of action, the name, description and place
of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he
claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that
such notice has been so delivered or left.
The three fundamental elements of S. 80 are:
firstly, the addressee should be identified and the
communication should have been received;
secondly, there should be no vagueness or indefinites
about the person giving the notice, who should also be
the person filing the complaint, and the notice should
also provide the information set out in S. 80; and
thirdly, the allowable two-month period must expire
before the claim is filed.
Once these criteria have been met, minor details such
as the person to whom the correspondence is addressed
should not make it an unacceptable notification that
does not meet requirements. Also, the notice is required
to convey to its recipients, sufficient information to
enable him to consider the claim, which was held in
Union of India v Shankar Stores.
Decision
Section 79 of Cpc, read along with the case law of
Dominion of India v. RCKC Nath & Co it is clear that
the terms like “dwell,” “reside,” and “carry on
business” found in Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Code
do not apply to the government.
So, in the instant case the only court competent to try
the suit is the court at Kozhikode where the right of the
government servant was violated and therefore the
court at Kollam is not competent to try the suit.
THANK YOU

Suits by or Against Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suits by or Against Government

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suits by or Against Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suits by or against

Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.