MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus C.L. BATRA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 10-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
C.L. BATRA 
AUGUST 10, 1994 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.) 
Municipalities: Delhi Municipal C01poration Act : 
S.170(b )--l'ropeny ta:i.--Payment of admitted tax only-Not paying tax 
C pending appeal--Stay of recovery of ta:i.--lnterim orders issued by Coun and 
extended from time to time-Validity of 
In this appeal, the grievance of the appellant- Corporation was that 
an interim order has been passed by the Delhi High Court by which the 
assessee has obtained stay of recovery of tax of about Rupees one crore, 
D and it was permitted to deposit only the admitted liability of Rs. 3,00,000 
in respect of the property in question. It was contended by the appellant 
that the said interim order has opened a flood gate and many other suits 
have been filed bypassing the statutory provisions of appeal; stay orders 
have been obtained in respect of demands totalling about Rupees twenty 
crores; and that the assessment have been completed in accordance with 
E 
F 
law. 
The assessee contended that an authenticated Assessment List being 
condition precedent to any recovery proceeding and in the absence of such 
list, no recovery proceeding could be commenced. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It has not been satisfactorily explained, why the 
statutory remedy of appeal was allowed to be bypassed. The Trial Judge 
was conscious of this aspect of the matter and the judgment of the Delhi 
G High Court in an earlier case. There is no explanation why even after this 
he entertained the suit and passed the Interim order. (507-A, CJ 
1.2. The assessee had filed a Writ Petition, praying for similar relief. 
When interim order was not granted on that Writ Petition, he withdrew 
the Writ Petition and filed this suit. This was an abuse of process of law. 
H No liberty was obtained from the Court to file a suit on the same cause of 
504 
M.C.D. v. f;.L. BATRA 
505 
action, when the Writ Petition was withdrawn. [507-C, DJ 
1.3. As early as on January 6, 1984, in the case of Siliguri Municipality, 
this Court had vacated an interim order staying recovery of tax. [507-D] 
A 
1.4. In the instant case, there is no question of constitutional in-
validity of any provision of law. In fact, this Court held Section 170(b) of B 
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was intra vires and the District 
Judge had oo jurisdiction to waive the condition of deposit or stay the 
collection of tax, pending disposal of the appeal in the Court. It was, 
however, pointed out that the District Judge bad the power to adjourn the 
hearing of the appeal or pass interim orders enabling the assessee to pay C 
up the taxes before the appeal was actually beard and determined. But, 
this power had to be exercised judicially bearing in mind the interests of 
Revenue and the position of the cases before him. [508-D, E] 
1.5. No gro11nd was indicated for passing the interim order staying 
recovery of tax. The order was passed even without deciding the question D 
of maintainability of the civil suit, and the interim order has been extended 
from time to time. [509-C] 
1.6 Having regard to the law which is now well-settled, it is difficult 
to understand how an interim order of stay of realisation of tax could be E 
passed in a case like this. The interim orders are set aside. The Delhi 
Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to recover the taxes due. [509-D] 
Siliguri Municipality and Ors. v. Amalendu Das and Ors.,. [1984] 2 
SCR 344; Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal 
v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors., [1985] 2 SCR 191 and Shri Sh yam Kish ore 
and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, JT (1992) 35 SC 
335, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.93 of the Delhi High 
Court in Suit No. 1851 of 1993. 
Arun Jaitley, Ms. Madhu Tewatia and Ranbir Yadav for the Appel-
lant. 
F 
G 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Awadh Behari Rohtagi and R.P. Sharma for the Respondent. 
B 
c 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. This appeal arises out of an interim order of stay passed by 
a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 16.12.1993 in Suit No. 1851 
of 1993. This suit was filed by the plaintiff, C.L. Batra, after the previous 
attempt to obtain interim order of stay filed in a Writ Petition (Civil Writ 
Petition No. 583/1992), which was dismissed as withdraw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.