MARTIN BURN LTD. versus THE CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 19-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

- • 
A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
' 
F 
G 
• 
H 
543 
MARTIN BURN LTD. 
v. 
THE CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA 
August 19, 1965 
·[A. K. SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923-Valuation of premises wrongly made 
under s. 127(b) instead of s. 127(a)-/n appeal High Court remanding 
care for valuation by lower court-If remand valid-Whether case one of 
cancellation within s. 131 (2)(b) or of revision within ss. 147 & 164. 
The annual value of certain premises occupied by the appellant was 
ascertained by the methods prescribed in cl. (b) of s. 127 of the Calcutta 
Municipal Act, 1923, with a view to asses.. the municipal rates payable 
in IllSpeCt of the premises. The appellant lodged objections under s. 139 
claiming, Inter a/la, that the basis of valuation was wrong as it should 
have been made by the method prescribed in cl. (a) of s. 127 and that the 
valuation was in any event excessive. The Deputy Commissioner rejected 
the objections, except that he reduced the valuation slightly; but an appeal 
under s. 141 to the Court of Small Causes was allowed and that court 
directed that a fresh Yaluation had to. be made under cl. (a) of s. 127 
by the &eoutive Officer, starting from the proceeding mentioned under 
s. 131(2) (b). 
The respondent thereupon appealed to the High Court. 
but the contentions raised by it were rejected; however, in view of the 
fact that the time-limit for an assessment by the Executive Officer under 
s. 131(2)(b) having expired he could no more make the valuation which 
the Court of Small Causes directed him to make and to prevent the 
Corporation being deprived of its rates as a result of such expiry of time. 
the High Court made an order remanding the case to the Court of 
Small Causes and directed it to make the valuation itself. 
In the appeal to this Court it wa• contended on behalf of the appellant 
that as the original valuation bad been cancelled because of an irregularity, 
the present case fell within s. 131(2)(b), and the High COOrt bad no 
power to remand the case for a vah,ration by the lower court; and that in 
ony event the order of remand was unjustifiable because it converted the 
appellant's appeal to the Court of Small Causes into a proceeding wholly 
alien to what it was originally meant for, in that it went bevond the scope 
of the objection made by the appellant under s. 139. On the other hand, 
it was the respondent's contention that the present cit.se was one of revision 
and alteration of a valuation contemplated in ss. 147 and 164 and not 
one of cancellation of a valuation within the meaning of s. 131(2)(b). 
HELD : (per Sarkar and Raghubar Dayal JI.) 
The High Court's order remanding the case to the Court of Small 
Causes with a direction to ascertain the annual value could not be sus~ 
tained. 
The liability for rates is a statutory liability under the Act and for 
such liability to arise the valuation bad to be made as provided in the 
statute. 
The Act. does not contemplate that rates may be fixed on the 
basis of a valuation made by a court such a valuation would create no 
statutory liability. It would be fruitless to direct the Court of Small Causes 
to make a fresh -valuation. [548 C-EJ 
., 
544 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966] l S.C.R. 
The direction of lhe High Court 10 the Court of Small Cause.< ""' A 
• 
not to revise or <titer a Yaluation but 10 make a fresh valuation and ;1s 
such the High ('curfs Order could not he upheld as directing a revision or 
alteration of the valuation under s. 147 or 164 of 1he Act. (548 F, G] 
Royal Asiatic Society of Bengu/ v. Corporation of Calcu11a, 58 C.W.N. 
537; disappro,eJ. 
Governor <..ieneral of JruJia in Council v. Corporution of Calcutta; 51 
B 
C.W.N. 517; North British &: Mercantile /nsura11cc Co. Ltd. v. Corpora-
tion of Calcww (Calcutta High Court C.ase No. 6 of 1943, unreported): 
Corporation of Ca/c111ta v. Chandoo Lal Bhai Chand Modi; 57 C.W.N. 882: 
referred to. 
(per Rama~\\.'ami J. dissentin,::) 
(i) The High Court having remanded the case to the lo\\·er court \\'ith 
a direction to ascertain the annual value under s. 127(a) after allowinf!, 
the parties to give further evidcnl:e, the va]uation had not been finally 
detennincd, hut was awaiting final adjudication. 
It was not therefore 
correct to say that there had been a cancellation of the valuation within 
the meaning of s. 131(2)(b). The present case was one of the revision 
of valuation and fell under the pur'\'iew of s. 147, so that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.