INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 07-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 
v 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. 
APRIL 7, 1995 
B 
(J.S. VERMA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956-Section 
138(b }-House t~nnual value of building-Non-obstante clause-Effect 
of the non-obstante clause. 
c 
Constitution of India-Article 141-Procedure-Whether the earlier 
decision of this Co1'rt can be overruled by a co-equal Bench of this Court. 
The Division Bench or the High Court by placing reliance on some 
other decisions or this Court on similar provision or other statutes or 
D different State where there was no non-obstante clause as in Section 138(b) 
of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, took the view that the 
decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation, Indore and others v. Smt. 
Ratnaprabha and Others, (1977) 1 SCR 1017 was not binding on it even 
) 
though it related to the construction of the same provision. 
E 
The Full Bench of the High Court overruled the decision of the 
Division Bench. 
Being aggrieved by the full Bench's decision the Petitioner preferred 
the present Petition. 
F 
Dismissing the Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The only direct decision of this Court on the construction 
of Section 138(b) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act Is Ratnaprabha's 
case and It distinguishes the other decisions of this Court in which 
G construction of similar provision In other statutes was Involved on the 
ground that they did not contain a non-obstante clause like that in Section 
138(b) of the M.P. Act. [248-H, 249-A, BJ 
The Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi and Others, (1962) 
3 SCR 49; Dewan Dau/at Rai Kapoor Etc. Etc. v. New Delhi Municipal 
H Committee and Another Etc. Etc., (1980) 2 SCR 607; Dr. Balbir Singh and 
246 
1.0.C. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. 
247 
Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Ors., [1985] 2 SCR 439 A 
and Morvi Municipality v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1993] 2 SCR 803, 
referred to. 
2. A Bench or three Judges only, in the later decisions could not 
overrule the decision of this Court in Ratnaprabha's case and, therefore, 
none of the later decisions could be so read to have that effect. The Division B 
Bench of the High Court was clearly in, error in taking the view that the 
decision of this Court In Ratnaprabha's case was not binding on it. In doing 
so, the Division Bench or the High Court did something which even a later 
co-equal Bench of this Court did not and could not do. [251-F, G] 
3. The test Indicated in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. for reconsideration of 
a decision of this Court Is not satisfied In the present case; therefore the 
plea for reconsideration or the decision In Ratnaprabha's case ean not be 
entertained. [253-B] 
c 
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, [1965] D 
i, 
2 SCR 908, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
7504 of 1995. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9 .94 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in C.R. No. 405 of 1992. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, S.K. Puri and H.K. Puri 
for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General. 
F 
The impugned judgment by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court overrules the decision of a DiVision Bench in Municipal Cor-
G 
poration, Indore and Other v. Smt. Ratnaprabha Dhanda, Indore and 
Another, (1989) MPLJ 20. The challenge in this special leave petition is to 
the correctness of the Full Bench decision. The question involved relates 
to the construction of Section 138(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the "M.P. Act") which reads as under : 
H 
A 
B 
c 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 3 S.C.R. 
"The annual value of any building shall notwithstanding anything 
contained in any other law for the time being in force deemed to be 
the gross annual rent at which such building, together with its 
appurtenances and any furniture that may be let for use or enjoy-
ment therewith might reasonably at the time of assessment be 
expected to be let from year to year, less any allowance of ten 
percent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary 
to maintain the building in a state to command such gross annual 
rent." 
(emphasis supplied) 
In the High Court the matter was not res integra being concluded by 
the authority of the direct decision by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in 
Municipal ·corporation, Indore and Other v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.