LexNAGAR PALIKA NIGAM versus KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 419
NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM
A
v.
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1921 of 2006)
OCTOBER 14, 2008
B
[DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHSIVAM AND AFTAB
-i-
ALAM JJ.]
-
Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972;
s. 9(3) and Proviso:
c
Property tax - Levy of, in terms of s. 9 (3) of the Act -
Challenge to in terms of Proviso to s.9(3) -Allowed by Single
Judge of the High Court holding that appellant-Corporation
had no jurisdiction to claim property tax from the petitioner for
the building constructed on market yard - Correctness of -
D
Held: Corporation did not challenge the proviso to s. 9(3) of
the Adhiniyam allowing exemption from levying of tax on such
property - Hence, no interference with the impugned order
called for.
Proviso to a Statute - Scope of - Discussed.
E
Interpretation of Statutes - Principles of construction -
Discussed.
'
The issue which arose for determination in this ap-
F
peal was as to whether the Corporation had jurisdiction
---4.
and authority to assess and recover the property tax from
respondent No.1 for the buildings, superstructure con-
structed in the market yard within the area of Municipal
Corporation in terms of proviso to s.9(3) of the Madhya
Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972.
G
t--
Appellant contended that there was no challenge to
the proviso appended to sub-section (3) of Section 9 of
the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam; and
419
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A
that the proviso casts out an exception to the provisions
}-
under s.9(3) of the Act.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The normal function of a proviso is to ex-
B cept something out of the enactment or to qualify some-
thing enacted therein which but for the proviso would be
within the purview of the enactment. (Para - 8) [426-A]
+
Mullins v. Treasurer of Survey 1880 (5) QBD 170; Shah
Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra
..
c Yograj Sinha AIR (1961) SC 1596 and Calcutta Tramways Co.
Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR (1965) SC 1728 - relied on.
1.2 When one finds a proviso to a section the natural
presumption is that, but for the proviso, the enacting part
D of the section would have included the subject matter of
the proviso. (Para - 8) [426-8]
1.3 As a general rule, a proviso is added to an enact-
+-
ment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the
enactment and o·rdinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as
E stating a general rule. (Para - 8) [426-D]
A. N. Sehgal and Ors. v. Raje Ram Sheoram and Ors.
AIR (1991) SC 1406; Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v.
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors. AIR (1991) SC 1538 and
1-
F
Kera/a State Housing Board and Ors. v. Ramapriya Hotels
(P) Ltd. and Ors. (1994) 5 sec 672 - relied on.
)-
West Derby Union v. Metropolitan Life Assurance Co.
(1897 AC 647) (HL) - referred to.
Coke upon Littleton 1 Sth Edition, 146 - referred to.
G
1.4 A proviso to a section cannot be used to import
into the enacting part something which is not there, but
·-4
where the enacting part is susceptible to several possible
meanings it may be controlled by the proviso. (Para - 13)
H [427-C-D]
NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM v. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI
421
SAMIT! & ORS.
--{
Ali M. K. & Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Ors. (2003) 4 SCALE
A
197 - referred to.
Re Barker, 25 Q.B.D. 285; Forbes v. Git [1922] 1 A.C.
256; Jennings v. Kelly [1940] A.C. 206 arid R. v. Taunton, St
James, 9 B. & C. 836 - referred to.
B
2.1 It is well settled principle in law that the Court
--+ ca.nnot read anything into a statutory provision which is
plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legis-
lature. The language employed in a statute is the determi-
native factor of legislative intent. (Para - 15) [427-E]
c
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Mis Price
Waterhouse and Anr. AIR (1998) SC 74 - relied on.
Jamma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah and
Ors. AIR (1962) SC 847 and The State of Gujarat and Ors. v.
D
Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr. JT (1998) 2 SC 253 - re-
_J
ferred to.
Crawford v. Spooner (1846 (6) Moore PC 1 - referred
to.
2.2 Statutes should not be construed as theorems E
of Euclid but words must be construed with some imagi-
nation of the purposes which lie behind them. (Para - 17)
[428-D]
Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage 218 FR 547 - re-
F
~ ferred to.
'
2.3 Two principles of construction - one relating to
casExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.