Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, P. K. SARKAR
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. OF INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
A. F. O. O 325 Of 1954
Decided On : JUNE 17, 1957
MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT - VALUATION OF LAND AND BUILDING - PRINCIPLES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 127 (B) OF THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1923 - TIME OF ASSESSMENT - MEANING OF - STANDARD RENT UNDER RENT CONTROL ACT - RELEVANCE IN DETERMINING ANNUAL VALUE UNDER SECTION 127 (A) OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a company, challenged the valuation of its premises under Section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, by the Corporation of Calcutta. The Deputy Commissioner (No. 1), Calcutta Corporation, had reduced the value of the land and the old building, but the Small Cause Court Judge accepted the valuation of the land at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per cottah, as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, but reduced the value of the building to Rs. 9,44,580/-. The company accepted the valuation of the building, but objected to the valuation of the land. The Corporation, in its appeal, objected to the valuation of the building.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appeal was properly held by the learned Small Cause Court Judge to be within time by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Court also held that the land was properly valued by the Corporation and that the building had been correctly valued by the learned Judge.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the land was properly valued by the Corporation? 3. Whether the building had been correctly valued by the learned Judge?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appeal was not barred by limitation as the time, taken for obtaining a copy of the order, appealed from, would legitimately be "time required for obtaining the copy", so far as the appellant is concerned, and he will be entitled to its exclusion under Section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act in the matter of computation of the period of limitation. 2. The Court held that the land was properly valued by the Corporation as there was no reliable direct evidence of the land value of the disputed premises, but there was the accepted assessment of the comparable neighbouring premises, namely the Hindusthan Building. That the said assessment was accepted by the owner, the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. , has not been disputed before us. That assessment is therefore, admissible as a relevant piece of evidence when it is found that there is no dispute that the premises of the Hindusthan Building is comparable to the disputed premises. 3. The Court held that the building had been correctly valued by the learned Judge as the "present cost", occurring in Section 127 (b), should be interpreted as having reference to any point of time other than the commencement of the particular period of re-valuation.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed.
( 2 ) AGAINST this assessment the Company appealed to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, on 12-8-1953, and claimed that the land should have been valued at Rs. 8,500/- per cottah and the building including the new constructions at Rs. 7,90,500/ -. The learned Small Cause Court Judge accepted the valuation of the land at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per cottah, as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, but he reduced the value of the building to Rs. 9,44,5807- and, after allowing the deduction, granted by the Corporation on account of cost of repairs and maintenance of lifts, he assessed the annual value of the premises at Rs. 59,560/ -.
( 3 ) THE Company, in its appeal, has accepted the valuation of the building, as made by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, but it has objected to the valuation of the land. The Corporation, in its appeal, has objected to his valuation of the building.
( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent Corporation, a preliminary objection was taken before the learned Small Cause Court Judge that the company's appeal before him was time-barred, but the learned Judge decided the point against the Corporation and held that the said appeal was within time. The same objection has been taken before us by Mr. Krishnalal Banerjee, appearing for the Corporation? of Calcutta.
( 5 ) THE appeal before the Small Cause Court was filed on 12-8-1953, but the order of the Deputy Commissioner, sought to be impugned therein, had been passed on 22-6-1953. The Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951. (which repealed the Act of 1923) had come into force on 14-2-1952, and it is common ground in this case that the above appeal to the Court of Small Causes was preferred under Section 183 (1) of that Act. The period, prescribed for such appeals, was 30 days under the Act of 1923, but this period was extended by Sub-section (2) of Section 183 of the Act of 1951, under which such an appeal is required to be preferred within 45 days from the date of the order, disposing of the objection. The appeal, in the present case, was not preferred within 45 days from the date of the order and hence it is contended that the appeal was out of time.
( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 182 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951, however, provides that "when the objection has been determined" by the Corporation Authorities, "a copy of the order" passed "shall be se
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
