TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Limits Remand Power in Valuation Dispute</h1> <h3>MARTIN BURN LTD Versus CORPN. OF CALCUTTA</h3> MARTIN BURN LTD Versus CORPN. OF CALCUTTA - 1966 AIR 529, 1966 (1) SCR 543 Issues Involved:1. Justification of the High Court's order of remand.2. Applicability of the valuation method under Section 127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.3. The power of the Court to make a fresh valuation.4. The impact of the statutory provisions on the valuation process and its finality.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of the High Court's Order of Remand:The primary issue was whether the High Court's order remanding the case to the Court of Small Causes for ascertaining the annual value was justified. The High Court had directed the Court of Small Causes to make the valuation itself, as the time limit for the Corporation to make a revaluation under Section 131(2)(b) had expired. The appellant contended that the High Court did not have the inherent power to remand the case for a fresh valuation, as it would convert the appellant's appeal into a proceeding wholly alien to its original purpose. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was not justifiable in law, as it was not within the inherent power of the High Court to remand the case for the doing of a thing which the Act did not countenance. The remand was deemed futile and it deprived the appellant of one of its statutory rights.2. Applicability of the Valuation Method under Section 127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923:The dispute centered around whether the valuation of the premises should have been made under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 127. Clause (a) applies where a building had been erected for letting purposes or was ordinarily let, and the valuation is based on the rent the building might reasonably fetch. Clause (b) applies to all other cases and is based on the cost of construction and the value of the land. The appellant objected to the valuation made under clause (b), arguing that it should have been made under clause (a). Both the Court of Small Causes and the High Court upheld the appellant's contention that the valuation should have been made under clause (a). The Supreme Court did not need to examine the merits of this decision, as the Corporation did not challenge the High Court's judgment on this point.3. The Power of the Court to Make a Fresh Valuation:The Supreme Court considered whether the Court of Small Causes had the power to make a fresh valuation after canceling the previous one. The Court noted that the Act did not contemplate a valuation made by a court on its own. Such a valuation would be futile and would create no statutory liability. The Court also observed that while the Act allowed for a valuation to be revised or altered by a court in an appeal, this did not apply to the present case, as the previous valuation had been canceled, not revised. The Court concluded that the High Court's order for the Court of Small Causes to make a fresh valuation was not within the scope of the Act.4. The Impact of the Statutory Provisions on the Valuation Process and Its Finality:The Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Sections 131, 136-138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, and 164 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The Court highlighted that the liability for rates is a statutory liability under the Act and must be based on a valuation made as provided in the statute. The Act required valuations to be made by the Corporation, with opportunities for rate-payers to object and appeal. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme did not allow for a court to make an independent valuation. The Court also rejected the reasoning in the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta, which suggested that a court could make a revised valuation in an appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order of remand was not justified, as it contravened the statutory provisions and deprived the appellant of its statutory rights.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment regarding the remand, and restored the judgment of the Court of Small Causes. The Corporation was ordered to pay the costs of the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
