Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 civil suit challenging revision of property tax was maintainable despite the bar under Rule 25 of Part-I of Schedule-III of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
Analysis: The statutory scheme provided for levy and assessment of property tax, preparation and revision of assessment books, objections, appeals to the Taxation Appeals Committee, a second appeal to the District Court, revisional powers, and a finality clause declaring the assessment or demand of tax final subject to the orders passed under the prescribed machinery. The plaint contained only general allegations that the enhancement was excessive, arbitrary, and unreasonable. It did not allege non-compliance with any fundamental statutory provision, absence of jurisdiction, or any ground that would bring the case within the recognised exceptions for civil court intervention. The existence of a statutory appellate remedy, even if onerous, could not by itself justify a civil suit where the statute expressly barred or by necessary implication excluded such jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The civil suit was not maintainable and the bar to civil court jurisdiction applied.