Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.L.TALATI
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD - Appellant
Versus
DENA BANK - Respondent
S.C.A. 5412 of 1982
Decided On : 03/08/1983
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 – Section 406, 69 (1), 2 (1a) (ii ), 131 (2) (b) - Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 - Section108 or 109 - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order XI, XIX rules 15 16 17 18 19 21 30 31 32 and 56 – Constitution of India 1950 Article 227 - Assessment of property tax - Construction of the building - Valuation - Few relevant facts for purpose of dealing with these petitions may be stated - Municipal Corporation assessment of property tax financial annual letting value effective Appropriate entries - Assessment book under Taxation Rules - Dena Bank filed a complaint against valuation but valuation came to be confirmed by Appellate Officer by his order - Application was submitted on prayer was that Dena Bank may be asked to produce sale-deed showing consideration paid by Bank for purchase of land over which building is constructed and relevant account books which could show costs of construction of building in question - That application ultimately came to be rejected – Held, Court not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Chief Judge merely because it is possible to suggest and argue that the reasoning of the learned Chief Judge is erroneous or that it is quite likely that the best evidence may not come on record. It is clear that reading the law and the rules there are enough provisions in law by which not only the best evidence but all evidence could be brought on record and there are further powers given to the Judge himself who can suo motu call for the evidence and ultimately the Judge himself would be deciding the matter by following any of the methods he chooses best on the evidence before him and that decision is subject to appeals which might lie in accordance with law. Now that therefore it is not necessary to interfere with the order passed at an interlocutory stag - Scope and ambit of Article 227 of Constitution are discussed and it is laid down as power of superintendence over tribunals vested High Court under Article 227 or Constitution is not greater than power under Article 226 and is limited to seeing that tribunal functions within limits of its authority - Mention that it is not thought fit to admit matter because court was addressed for more than ten hours by advocates on both sides and therefore nothing more could have been urged if matter was admitted and finally heard - Therefore matter was heard as if all final arguments are being addressed and both parties had fullest opportunity to address this Court it all its details and having found that it is not likely that court may have taken any different view on further final hearing and therefore court have not admitted these two matters - Petition dismissed.
( 1 ) A common question is raised in both the petitions and therefore these two petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Few relevant facts for the purpose of dealing with these petitions may be stated.
( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 5412 of 1982 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation valued for the purpose of assessment of property tax for the financial year 1981-82 and its annual letting value effective on 10-9-1981 was fixed at Rs. 3 30 592 Appropriate entries were made in the assessment book under Taxation Rules. Dena Bank filed a complaint against the valuation but the valuation came to be confirmed by the Appellate Officer by his order dated 9-2-1982. Thereafter Dena Bank preferred Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 826 of 1982 before the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad under sec. 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 While the appeal was pending on behalf of the respondent i. e. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation an application was submitted on 4 The prayer was that Dena Bank may be asked to produce the sale-deed showing the consideration paid by the Bank for the purchase of the land over which building is constructed and the relevant account books which could show the costs of construction of the building in question. That application ultimately came to be rejected on 14-12-1982. That order is now challenged by Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad by filing Special Civil Application No. 5412 of 1982.
( 3 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 196 of 1983 deals with a similar type of case where Central Bank of India is concerned. The Municipal Corporation assessed for the municipal tax Central Bank of India on the basis of the gross rateable value of Rs. 3 97 80. That matter also was taken in appeal by filing Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 1492 of 1982 under the provisions of sec. 406 of the Act and during the pendency of that appeal on 23-12-1982 on behalf of the Municipal Corporation an application was submitted praying that Central Bank of India may be directed to disclose the market value of the land purchased by it and also the cost of the construction of the superstructures and that should be done by producing the documents and filing the affidavits. That application came to be rejected by the Chief Judge by passing an order on 6-1-1983. That order is now challenged by filing Special Civil Application No. 196 of 1983.
( 4 ) NOW so far as Special Civil Application No. 196 of 1983 is concerned the learned advocate Shri Modi raised a preliminary objection which is required to be dealt with first. Here it may be stated that no such preliminary objection was taken by the learned advocate Shri G. N. Desai who argued Special Civil Application No. 5412 of 1982. The preliminary objection is two-fold. The first objection is that vakalatnama produced in court by the learned advocate Sari Shelat is signed by the Deputy Commissioner and it was required to be signed by the Municipal Commissioner Himself. The second objection is that the petitioner which is solemnly affirmed was required to be Solemnly affirmed by the Municipal Commissioner but it is not so solemnly affirmed but it is solemnly affirmed by the Deputy Assessor and Tax Collector Shri C. M. Shah. Several office orders were produced some by the learned advocate Shri Vakil and some by the learned advocate Shri Modi. Office Order No. 2372 dated 10-8-1977 shows that the power to sign vakalatnama has been given by the Municipal Commissioner to Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Another order is Office order No. 2458 which is dated 7-8-1979. That order is passed in supersession of all previous orders in respect of deputation of powers and duties under sec. 49 (1) of the Act and in that also the power to sign vakalatnama in favour of an advocate pleader or any other legal practitioner engaged on behalf of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in court matters including matters of proceedings under the Gujarat Pu
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
