Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 219
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Faridabad Complex Administration – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/s Iron Master India (P) Ltd. – Respondent(s)
Decided On : 07-03-2017
CIVIL APPEAL No.1182 OF 2007
For the Appellants : Ugra Shankar Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Manjula Gupta, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Maintainability of holding tax, bar of suit and availability of any alternative statutory remedy constitute substantial question of law.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – High Court dismissing second appeal for want of substantial question of law – Held, maintainability of holding tax, bar of suit and availability of any alternative statutory remedy constitute substantial question of law – High Court committing jurisdictional error – Matter remanded. (Para 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The respondent is a Limited Company having their place of business in Faridabad. The appellant is the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad.
The respondent is subjected to payment of various taxes including House Tax on the properties owned by them at Faridabad.
The respondent filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellant restraining them from recovering the House Tax for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 from the respondent on their properties.
The appellant also sought a declaration that a demand notice dated 20.11.1993 raised by the appellant calling upon the respondent to pay Rs. 48,599.40 towards the House Tax on their properties is illegal.
The Trial Court dismissed the Suit.
The respondent filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad who allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the respondent's suit against the appellant.
The High Court, however, dismissed the second appeal in limine holding that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.
Finding of the Court:
High Court committed jurisdictional error.
Result: Appeal allowed. Matter remanded.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellant(defendant) against the final judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 530 of 2004 by which the High Court dismissed the regular second appeal filed by the appellant herein in limine against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad in C.A. No. 166 of 2002 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent(plaintiff) was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the suit of the respondent was decreed.
2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issued involved in this appeal.
3. The respondent is a Limited Company having their place of business in Faridabad. The appellant is a Municipal Corporation, Faridabad as defined under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
4. The respondent is subjected to payment of various taxes including House Tax under the Act on the properties owned by them at Faridabad. The respondent filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellant restraining them from recovering the House Tax for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 from the respondent on their properties. The appellant also sought a declaration that a demand notice dated 20.11.1993 raised by the appellant calling upon the respondent to pay Rs. 48,599.40 towards the House Tax on their properties is illegal.
5. The appellant filed written statement and defended the aforementioned demands on various grounds. The appellant also raised an objection about the maintainability of the Suit.
6. The Trial Court framed issues. Parties adduced evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2002 in Case No. 1483 of 1995, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit. Felt aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal being Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2002 before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. By order dated 22.10.2003, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the respondent's suit against the appellant.
7. Felt aggrieved, the appellant(defendant) filed second appeal before the High Court wherein the appellant had proposed several substantial questions of law arising in the case. The High Court, however, dismissed the second appeal in limine by impugned judgment/order holding that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is against this judgment, the appellant(defendant) has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
8. It is unfortunate that no one appeared for the appellant to argue the appeal before this Court when the case was called on for hearing twice. We, however, refrained ourselves from dismissing the appeal in default and instead perused the record with the assistance of Mr. A.K. Singla, learned senior counsel for the respondent with a view to decide the appeal on merits.
9. Having heard learned senior counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
10. The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal of the appellant(defendant) in limine holding that it does not involve any substantial question of law?
11. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the appeal passed the following order:
"This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.
While decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that before fixing th
