Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a consolidated reference by the Judge (Revisions) under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be entertained by the High Court under section 113 read with section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: The statutory reference provision in section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 governed references on questions of law arising from orders under sections 9 and 10, and the matter before the Court was not a reference under that provision. Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Order 46, Rule 1, permits a reference only in a suit or an appeal in a suit. Section 141 extends only procedural provisions to other civil proceedings and does not create any substantive power to invoke another court's jurisdiction unless such power is expressly conferred by statute.
Conclusion: The reference was incompetent and could not be entertained under section 113 read with section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Conclusion: The applications in revision did not result in a valid reference to the High Court, and the references were rejected with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not confer substantive jurisdiction to make a reference to the High Court, and a reference under section 113 is maintainable only within the limits prescribed by Order 46, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.