1962 Supreme(SC) 115
T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, K. SUBBA RAO
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Anand Maharaj – Respondent
Advocates:
Bishambar Lal Khanna, C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, H.N.SANYAL, K.K.JAIN, S.K.KAPOOR
Judgement Key Points
- The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court confirming the dismissal of the appellants' application to review an order dated November 22, 1958. (!)
- The respondent held zamindari and agricultural properties and was assessed to agricultural income-tax by the Additional Collector, Banaras, for the year 1359 fasli. (!)
- The respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the assessment order on the ground that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction. (!)
- The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the assessment, and the State of Uttar Pradesh did not prefer an appeal, allowing the order to become final. (!)
- The State of Uttar Pradesh promulgated an Ordinance (later replaced by U.P. Act XIV of 1956) which retrospectively validated the assessments and conferred a right to apply for review within 90 days of the Ordinance's commencement. (!)
- The appellants filed an application for review pursuant to Section 6 of the Ordinance (Section 11 of the Act) in the High Court at Allahabad. (!)
- The High Court judge, Mehrotra, J., held that Section 11 of the Act did not entitle the appellants to file an application for review of an order made by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. (!)
- The appellants appealed to a division Bench, which dismissed the appeal on two grounds: first, that an order refusing an application for review is not a "judgment" under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court; second, that Section 11 of the Act does not cover such an order. (!)
- The Supreme Court is addressing the first question: whether an appeal lies against the order of Mehrotra, J. rejecting the application for review to a division Bench under Chapter VIII Rule 5, which requires the order to amount to a "judgment." (!)
- The definition of "judgment" in the context of Letters Patent clauses varies among High Courts, with Calcutta viewing it as a decision affecting merits or determining some right or liability, while Madras views it as any adjudication that puts an end to the suit or proceeding. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- The Calcutta High Court held that an order refusing to set aside an order granting leave to sue is a judgment because it determines the right to sue and affects jurisdiction. (!) (!)
- The Madras High Court held that an order refusing to frame an issue is not a judgment, emphasizing that the test is the effect of the adjudication on the suit or proceeding. (!)
- The Madras High Court further clarified that a decision determining the cause or proceeding so far as the court is concerned, even if it refuses to adjudge the merits, must be deemed a judgment. (!)
- The Allahabad High Court expressed the view that an order not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not appealable. (!)
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. (For himself, Sinha, C.J.I. and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and Venkatarama Aiyar JJ.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court confirming those of a single Judge of that court dismissing the application filed by the appellants to review the order of the High Court dated November 22, 1958.
2. The facts leading up to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated. The respondent held certain zamindari and agricultural properties in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh. On December 22, 1952, the Additional Collector, Banaras, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the provisions of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act (Act III of 1949), assessed the respondent to an agricultural Income-tax of Rs. 99,964-12-0 for the year 1359 fasli. On September 30, 1955, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order on the ground that the Additional Collector, Banaras, had no jurisdiction to make the said assessment. On November 22, 1955, Mehrotra, J., allowed the writ petition quashing the said assessment. The
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
