LexCHANDI PRASAD CHOKHANI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Ll962] r96r municipal law different High Courts seem to have taken the view that Magistrates entertaining recovery c DMgahA. proceedings under the appropriate statutory provi- omnnttee, ;mer sions are not inforior criminal courts under the Code v. State of Rajasthan of Criminal Procedure. Though we have referred to - these decisions we wish to make it clear that we Gajendrngadk"" J. should not be taken to have expressed any opinion about the correctness or otherwise of the views taken by the different High Courts in regard to the questions raised before them. April 24. The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. CHAND! PRASAD CHOKHANI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, nir. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH and T. L. VENKA'l'ARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Supreme Court-Grant of Special Leave~ Practice-Appeal by Special Leave-Grant of special leave-·-Propriety, if can be ques- tioned at hearing of appeal. Sales tax-Orders of Board of Revenue in revision-Orders of High Court-Special leave granted against orders of Board- \ Maintainability of appeal. The appellant firm was assessed to sales tax under the pro- visions of the Bihar Sales Tax, 1944, for three periods commenc- ing from October l, 1947, and ending on March 31, 1950. Its claim for certain deductions was disallowed, and its applications in revision under s. 24 of the Act to the Board of Revenue, Bihar, were dismissed by three orders dated August 20, 1953, September 3, r953 and April 30, 1954· Under s. 25(1) of the Act the appellant applied to the Board to state a case to the High Court of Patna on certain questions of law, butthe applica- tions were dismissed by order dated August 30, 1954, on the ground that no questions of law arose. The appellant then moved the High Court for requiring the Board to stale a case on the said questions of law. The High Court dismissed the applica- tions in respect of the first two periods of assessment, but by order dated November 17, 1954, directed the Board ~o state a 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 277 case in regard to the third period on one of the questions of r96r law which only, in its opinion, arose. By its judgment dated January 21, 1957. the High Court answered the question Chandi Prasad against the appellant. On February 17, 1955. the appellant Chokhani made applications to the Supreme Court for special leave to v. appeal against the orders of the Board of Revenue dated August State of Bihar 20, 1953, and September 3, 1953. in respect of the first two periods; and on April 12, 1955, it similarly applied for special leave in respect of the third period. Leave was granted in respect of all the three applications by order dated December 23, 1955. the leave granted in regard to the third period being confined to \he order of the Board dated August 30, 1954· When the appeals oame up for hearing the question was raised as to whether tnt appeals were maintainable in view of the fact that no applications for leave to appeal were filed against the orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court subsequent to the orders of the Board in respect of which only special ;1eave had been granted. Held, that though the words of Art. 136 of the Constitution of India are wide, the Supreme Court has uniformly held as a rule of practice that there must be exceptional and special circumstances to justify the exercise of the discretion under that Article. Pritam Singh v. The State, [1950] S.C.R. 453, V. Govinda- rajulu Mudaliar v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, A.LR. 1959 S.C. 248 and Messrs Chimmonlall Rameshwarlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 280, reli.ed on. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, [1955] l S.C.R. 941 and Baldev Singh v. Commis- sioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Ajmer, [1960] 40 I.T.R. 605, explained. Held, further, that in the circumstances of the present case the appellant was not entitled to a grant of special leave against the orders of the Board of Revenue where the result would be to by-pass the High Court by ignoring its orders. Held, also, that though special leave might have been granted on an application made under Art. 136, the Court is not precluded from coming to a conclusion at the time of the hear- ing of the appeal that such leave ought not to have been granted. Baldota Brothers v. Libra Mining Work
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.