N.D.M.C versus SATISH CHAND (DECEASED) BY LR. RAM CHAND

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 11-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

N.D.M.C. 
v. 
SA TISH CHAND (DECEASED) BY LR. RAM CHAND 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Sections 84 and 86-Assessment and 
levy of property tax-Suit for permanent injunction filed against demand 
of property tax-Held, statue provides specific remedy of appeal restraining 
A 
B 
a party from challenging assessment and levy of tax in any manner other C 
than as provided under the Act-Suit clearly barred and not maintainable-
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 9. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 9-Jurisdiction of civil 
courts to try suits-Express bar present where relevant provision contained 
in a statute barring jurisdiction of civil courts-Implied bar arises where D 
a statute provides a special remedy and procedure for appeal. 
The appellant-municipality levied property tax on property owned 
by the respondent-assessee after assessment and served a demand 
notice. The same was challenged by the respondent on the ground that 
the property was in a basement and due to filling up with sub-soil water E 
it could not be used all year round, therefore, could not be said to have 
any annual rateable value for the purpose of assessment to property 
tax. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining 
the appellant-municipality from demanding the property tax levied. 
The appellant took a preliminary objection against the maintainability F 
of the suit as Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, 
under which it was constituted, did not permit the same. The trial court 
upheld the objection and dismissed the suit. The first appeal of the 
respondent-assessee was allowed and the suit was held to be 
maintainable. High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the 
appellant-municipality. Hence this appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The civil suit filed by the respondent-assessee 
challenging the assessment and demand of property tax is clearly 
barred and is not maintainable. [653-F) 
H 
645 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 19II contains a 
provision regarding appeals against assessment and levy of taxes 
providing a remedy of a statutory appeal to a party aggrieved of 
assessment and levy of tax. When a Statute provides a remedy of 
appeal it is a remedy governed by the Statute and has to be exercised 
strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. Section 86 oft.he 
B Act contains a bar against challenge to any valuation or assessment for 
purposes of tax including property tax except in accordance with 
remedy contained in the Act itself. Any person is further debarred 
from questioning the liability towards, tax based on assessment by the 
authorities under the Act by any manner except the procedure 
C provided in the Act itself. ( 649-C, D] 
1.3. Though the opening. words of section 9 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 give a very wide jurisdiction to the civil courts to try 
all suits of a civil nature, this wide power is qualified by providing an 
exception i.e. "excepting suits of which their cognizance is either 
D expressly or impliedly barred." A bar to file a civil suit may be express 
or implied. An express bar is present where a Statute itself contains 
a provision that the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred. An implied 
bar may arise when a Statute provides a special remedy to an 
aggrieved party like a right of appeal as contained in the Punjab 
Municipal Act. Section 86 of the Act restrains a party from challenging 
E assessment and levy of tax in any manner other than as provided under 
the Act. The provision is an implied bar as envisaged in Section 9 
C.P.C. against filing a civil suit. (650-D, 651-G-H, 652-A] 
Dholabhai Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR (1969) SC 
F 78; Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (dead) by L.Rs. v. Union of India, AIR 
(1988) SC 752 and Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, 
Chheharta, (1979] 3 SCR 463, relied on. 
G 
Sabha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 34 
(1988) Delhi Law Times 91, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2700 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.96 of the Delhi High Court 
H in R.S.A. No. 95 of 1996. 
N.D.M.C. v. SATISH CHAND [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 
647 
Rakesh K. Khanna, Ms. Rashmi Khanna, Reetesh Singh, Shashank A 
Shekhar and Surya Kant for the Appellant. 
Rish Maheshwari, Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, R.K. Mah

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