MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI AND ANR. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 02-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
DECEMBER 2, 1998 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Sections 217 (1) and 2 J 8D-
Scope of 
C 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Section JOO-A (As introduced by 
D 
Amendment Act 1976)-0bject and scope of 
. Letters Patent Appeal-Appeal against the decision of a single judge 
of High Court in second appeal-Permissibility of-Position before and after 
insertion of section JOO-A in Code of Civil Procedure. 
Appeal preferred by respondent before Additional Chief Judge of Small 
Causes Court under section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act-
Order passed in-Second appeal filed in High Court under section 218 D(J) 
by respondent-Second appeal partly allowed by a single Judge of the High 
Court-Letters Patent appeal filed by appellant against order of Single 
E Judge-Dismissed by High Court as non maintainable-Appeal preferred 
before this· Court-Held jurisdiction exercised by the Chief Judge of Small 
Causes Court under section 217 (1) is appellate jurisdiction-The proceedings 
under section 217(1) are appellate proceedings in a second forum and not 
original proceedings in a first forum-The appeal filed by the respondent 
F under Section 218D of the Act was a second appeal against the appellate 
order made by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court-Since an 
appeal under Section 217 (1) of the Act is a first appeal in a second forum! 
court and an appeal under Section 2 J 8D of the Act is the second appeal in 
the third forum/court, no further appeal would be competent before the fourth 
forum/court in view of Section JOOA of the Code of Civil Procedure-The 
G view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court under the circumstances 
suffers from no error. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6060 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.98 of the Bombay High Court 
288 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BRIHANMUMBAI v. S.B.I. 
in L.P.A. No. 191of1997. 
289 
Bhimrao N. Naik, Pallav Sisodia, (D.N. Mishra,) for Manik Karanjawala 
for the Appellants. 
Rafique Dada, Chirag Balsara, Jaideep Verma, R.N. Karanjawala, Mrs. 
A 
Nandini Gore, Ms. Yasmin Godrej and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala for the B 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave calls in question an order of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Bombay Dated 13th January, 1998 dismissing the 
Letters patent Appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable. A 
brief reference to the facts, at this stage, would be apposite. 
c 
The respondent herein had preferred an appeal before the Additional D 
Chief Judge of Small Causes Court under Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal 
Corporation Act. The learned Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes 
Court decjded the appeal vide order dated 8th February, 1996. 
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, E 
Small Causes Court dated 8th February, 1996, the respondent filed a second 
appeal in the High Court under Section 218-D(J) of the Act. The learned 
single Judge of the Bombay High Court on 31-1-1997 allowed that appeal 
partly. The appellant questioned the order of the learned single Judge dated 
3 Jst of January, 1997 through a Letters Patent Appeal. An objection was 
raised before the Division Bench of the High Court regarding the maintainability F 
of the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that against an order of dismissal 
of the second appeal by the High Court, no further appeal could lie either 
under Letters Patent or any other law. Reliance was also placed on Section 
100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection found favour with the 
learned Division Bench and without going into the merits of the order of the G 
learned single Judge, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as not 
maintainable. 
We have heard Mr. Bhimrao N. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the appellants and Mrs. Refique Dada, learned senior counsel' appearing 
for the respondent. 
H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is a complete Code and 
contains provision for filing appeal etc. against order made under the Act. 
Section 217(1) of the Act provides: 
"217( I) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against 
any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be 
B 
heard and det
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.