TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the High Court could allow an amendment introducing a new case of fraud and direct further evidence and a fresh trial in appeal; (ii) whether sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and clause (2) of Schedule GG, were valid and whether the tenants' suit challenging the clearance order was maintainable.
Issue (i): whether the High Court could allow an amendment introducing a new case of fraud and direct further evidence and a fresh trial in appeal.
Analysis: The amendment shifted the pleading from a general allegation of mala fides to a distinct case of fraud without foundation in the original plaint. The High Court also directed additional evidence and a virtual retrial, although the record did not disclose any permissible basis for invoking the appellate power to admit evidence merely to fill gaps or to secure a particular result. The remand did not fit the statutory grounds for additional evidence or remand under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Conclusion: The High Court acted without warrant in permitting the amendment and in remitting the matter for a retrial.
Issue (ii): whether sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and clause (2) of Schedule GG, were valid and whether the tenants' suit challenging the clearance order was maintainable.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required publication of the clearance order, notice, objections, consideration by the Improvements Committee, confirmation by the State Government, and an appeal by any person aggrieved. Read as a whole, these provisions afforded tenants an opportunity to object and appeal, so the restriction on their property rights was a reasonable one in the interests of the general public. Once the clearance order was confirmed and published, finality attached subject to the statutory appeal, and a tenant who had that remedy could not maintain a suit to challenge the order. The expression "person aggrieved" was given its natural and wide meaning so as to include tenants whose interests were affected.
Conclusion: The provisions were valid, the tenants were entitled to object and appeal, and the suit was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the challenge to the clearance order failed because the statutory scheme was held to be valid and exclusive.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a complete mechanism of notice, objection, confirmation and appeal to persons aggrieved, the resulting restriction on property rights is reasonable, and a suit is barred once that statutory remedy is available and finality has attached to the order.
TaxTMI 
