FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION versus M/S IRON MASTER INDIA (P) LTD.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 07-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 107 
FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION 
v. 
MIS IRON MASTER INDIA (P) LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1182 of2007) 
A 
cF 
MARCH 07, 2017 
B 
• [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. 100 - Second appeal - Dismissed in /imi11e - On appeal, 
held: Having regard to the nature of controversy and the issues 
arising in the case, the questions raised in the second appeal did 
constitute subsiantial questions of law within the meaning of s. 
JOO - High Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the 
second appeal in limine - Case remanded to High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: t. Having regard to the nature of controversy 
involved in the suit and the issues arising in the case, the questions 
raised in the second appeal did ~onstitute substantial questions 
of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. [Para 13) [HO-
G-HJ 
2. The questions, viz., whether the suit seeking a 
declaration that the demand of House Tax raised under the Act 
is maintainable; whether such suit is barred and, if so, by virtue 
of which provision of the Act; whether plaintiff has any alternative 
statutory remedy available under the Act for adjudication of his 
grievance and, if so, which is that remedy; and lastly, whether the 
plaintiff has properly valued the suit and, if so, whether they have 
paid the proper Court fees on the reliefs claimed in the suit were 
legal questions arising in the appeal and involved jurisdictional 
issues requiring adjudication on merits in accordance with law. 
The High Court thus committed jurisdictional error when it 
dismissed the second appeal in limine. [Paras 14, 15) [111-A-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1182 
of 2007 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2004 of the High Court 
c 
E 
F 
G 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. No. 530 of 2004. 
H 
107 
108 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
Ugra Shankar Prasad, Adv. for the appellant. 
A. K. Singla, Sr. Adv., Ms. Manjula Gupta, Ms. Pooja Singh, 
Advs. for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANO HAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by the 
appellant( defendant) against the final judgment and order dated 
16.02.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at 
Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 530 of2004 by which the High Court dismissed 
the regular second appeal filed by the appellant herein i11 li111i11e against 
the judgment and decree dated 22. l 0.2003 passed by the Additional 
District Judge, Faridabad in C.A. No. 166 of2002 whereby the appeal 
filed by the respondent(plaintiff) was allowed, the judgment and de.cree 
passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the suit of the respondent 
was decreed. 
2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues 
involved in this appeal. 
3. The respondent is a Limited Company having their place of 
business in Faridabad. The appellant is a Municipal Corporation, Faridabad 
as defined under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred 
to as "the Act"). 
4. The respondent- is subjected to payment of various taxes 
including House Tax under the Act on the properties owned by them at 
Faridabad. The respondent filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction 
against the appellant restraining them from recovering the House Tax 
for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 from the respondent on 
their properties. The respondent also sought a declaration that a demand 
notice dated 20.11.1993 raised by the appellant calling upon the responaent 
to pay Rs.48,599.40 towards the House Tax on their properties is illegal. 
5. The appellant filed written statement and defended the 
aforementioned demands on various grounds. The appellant also raised· 
an objection about the maintainability of the Suit. 
6. The Trial Court framed issues. Parties adduced evidence. Vide 
judgment and decree dated 20.09.2002 in Case No. 1483 of 1995, the 
Trial Court dismissed the Suit. Felt aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal 
being Civil Appeal No. 166 of2002 before the Additional District Judge, 
Faridabad. By order dated 22.10.2003, the Additional District Judge 
FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION v. MIS IRON 
MASTER INDIA (P) LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court 
and decreed the respondent's suit against the appellant. 
7. Felt aggrieved, the appellant( defendant) filed second appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.