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 the deposit of the disputed property tax under section 170 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was a condition precedent to the entertainment and hearing of an appeal under section 169, and whether the appellate court could invoke section 457 read with Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to stay the deposit requirement.
Analysis: The statutory scheme made deposit of the amount in dispute a mandatory requirement before an appeal under section 169 could be heard or determined. The procedural provision in section 457, even if it imported the appellate procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, could not override the specific condition laid down in section 170(b). The earlier Division Bench decisions holding that the appeal could not be entertained without deposit were followed, and the contrary view of a single judge was not accepted.
Conclusion: The deposit of the disputed tax was held to be a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal, and the appellate court had no discretion to waive that requirement under Order 41 Rule 5 in such cases.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the impugned direction requiring deposit before issuance of notice of appeal was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute makes deposit of the amount in dispute a condition precedent to the hearing of an appeal, the general appellate powers under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to dispense with that statutory requirement.