Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P. COLABAWALLA
Sasmita Investments Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Appropriate Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
1. The above appeal takes exception to the order dated 7th April 2014 [for short the “impugned order”] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant [Original Plaintiff] on the ground that it was barred under the provisions of Section 269-UN and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short the “IT Act, 1961”].
2. Initially, by order dated 29th January 2013, the learned Single Judge framed three preliminary issues [to be decided in the above suit] under the provisions of the Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”]. For the sake of convenience, the issues framed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereunder:-
1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court to try, entertain and dispose of the present suit is barred under section 269UN of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement and/or section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the law of limitation bars the present suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to maintain the present suit as pleaded in paragraph 11 of
The court ruled that a declaration of abrogation under the Income Tax Act does not challenge the validity of a Compulsory Purchase Order, thus maintaining civil court jurisdiction.
The suit for cancellation of a sale-deed was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a Joint Hindu Family or that the propert....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reliance on an unregistered document and failure to seek necessary reliefs can render a suit not maintainable.
Specific performance cannot be enforced against parties not privy to the original contract, and suits lacking a cause of action are subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction by special statute and the powers of the statutory tribunal were central to the Court's decision.
Suit barred due to lack of objection against record of rights; civil court jurisdiction excluded under specific statutory provisions.
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters involving non-agricultural land, despite the U.P. Revenue Code's provisions, as the rejection of the plaint was deemed unlawful.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
