TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Rule 8 framed under Section 28 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, IV of 1938 was within the rule-making power of the Provincial Government and valid; (ii) whether an order passed under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, IV of 1938 was appealable as a matter relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue (i): Whether Rule 8 framed under Section 28 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, IV of 1938 was within the rule-making power of the Provincial Government and valid.
Analysis: The power under Section 28(1) to make rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act, and the ancillary power under Section 28(2)(c) to remove difficulties, did not extend to creating a new right of appeal. A right of appeal is not implied and must be conferred by express legislative authority. Rule 8, by purporting to provide appeals from specified orders, added something to the Act and went beyond the rule-making power conferred by the statute.
Conclusion: Rule 8 was ultra vires the power of the Provincial Government and invalid.
Issue (ii): Whether an order passed under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, IV of 1938 was appealable as a matter relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Proceedings under Section 19 were independent proceedings under the special Act and were not proceedings in execution. The Court acting under Section 19 applies the Act to an existing decree and may amend the decree or record satisfaction, but that process is distinct from execution proceedings under the Code. Therefore Section 47, which applies to questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction arising in execution, had no application.
Conclusion: An order under Section 19 was not appealable under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the purported appellate rule was beyond power and that orders under Section 19 did not fall within Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: A right of appeal must be conferred by clear statutory authority, and proceedings under a special enactment do not attract Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unless they are truly proceedings in execution.
TaxTMI 
