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. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises under registered deed dated February 19, 1947. Muhammad Yusuf sold out the structure of the said premises to Haji Rasul Baksh under registered deed dated February 22, 1949 and granted lease of the land of the said premises in his favour under registered deed dated February 22, 1949. The said Haji Rasul Baksh again sold the structure of the said premises to Sainoo Bibi and three others under registered deed dated May 18, 1955 and granted lease of the land of the said premises in their favour under registered deed dated May 21, 1955. The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of Sainoo Bibi and others filed return in Form-A by asserting their rights as tikha tenants in respect of the said premises. They also claim to have paid rent to the erstwhile landlord by producing rent receipts issued by the erstwhile landlord in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in connection with the said premises before the respondent no.2. On the other hand, the respondent no.3 purchased 8 cottahs 9 chittacks of land together with structure situated on the said premises from Shyamali Mallik and others under registered deed of the year 2009. The claim of the petitioners as tikha ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 4 of the Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997 has jurisdiction in relation to any order made by an authority under the specified Act as laid down in Section 6 of the Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997. The specific submission of Mr. Basu is that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercised by the Single Bench in connection with any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal is barred under Section 8 of the Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997. He has relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of our High Court in "Eastern Chemical Industries V. Fona Rubber Pvt. Ltd." reported in 2012(2) CHN (CAL) 417 and the decision of another Co-ordinate Bench of our High Court in "Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax" reported in 2014(1) CHN (CAL) 211 and the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in "L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India" reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 in support of his above contention. 5. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature and the said power is not limited by any other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Civil Court, the plaintiff of the suit moved the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition contending, inter alia, that the High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order passed by the Civil Court. By overruling two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in "Surya Dev Rai V. Ram Chander Rai" reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 and by following the ratio of an earlier nine Judge Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in "Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar V. State of Maharashtra" reported in AIR 1967 SC 1, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the judicial orders of the Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby the order of the High Court was set aside. The ratio of this decision cited on behalf of the petitioner has no bearing on the facts of the present case where the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Controller, Kolkata Tikha Tenancy in connection with a proceeding under Section 5(3) of the Tikha Tenancy Act of 2001. 7. In "L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India & Ors." reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 the seven Judge Bench of the Supreme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is behalf, exercise jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to - (a) [any order] made by an Authority under a specified Act; (b) an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence of an Authority under a specified Act; (c) an appeal against an order of the Mines Tribunal appointed under Section 36 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (W.B. Act of 1954); (d) applications relating to matters under any provision of a specified Act or matters relating to any constitutional validity of any Act under the provisions of a specified Act; (e) adjudication of matters, proceedings, cases and appeals which stand transferred from the High Court and other Authorities to the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 8. On perusal of the provisions of Section 6 the Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997 I find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to any order made by any authority under a specified Act. In other words, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain any application challenging any order passed by any authority under any provision of the specified Act, viz, the Tikha Tenancy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the said reported case the landlord instituted the suit against the tenant for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the judgement and decree of the trial court. During pendency of the second appeal at the instance of the landlord, the tenant took the plea of tikha tenancy and moved the Tikha Controller for deciding the dispute with regard to the claim as tikha tenant. The landlord raised the issue of maintainability of the application of the tenant. The issue of maintainability was kept open by the Tikha Controller. The issue raised before the Single Bench of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution was whether the maintainability of the dispute with regard to the tikha tenancy or tikha property can be considered as jurisdictional error of the Tikha Controller for exercise of jurisdiction of superintendence by the High Court. The Co-ordinate Bench held in paragraph 19 of the judgement that the challenge to the impugned order of the Tikha Controller cannot be entertained by a judge of this Court sitting singly since the point of maintainability raised by the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 2003 to come within the ambit of the specified State Act and, therefore, any matter touching Sections 5 and 6 of the Tribunal Taxation Act can be assailed before the Tribunal on all point including the point relating to violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of the High Court, therefore, does not retain the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition which is the exclusive domain of the Taxation Tribunal but the Division Bench of the High Court can certainly entertain the writ petition after exhausting the remedy available to the aggrieved person after approaching the Tribunal." 11. In the unreported case of "M/s Kkalpana Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. V. Union of India & Anr." (W.P. No.1662(W) 2017 decided on February 4, 2017) cited on behalf of the petitioners Learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner of the said writ petition was denied the right of cross-examination of the witness, in spite of having alternative remedy of preferring appeal against the impugned order. In this unre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g exclusion of the jurisdiction of all Courts (except the Supreme Court of India) under Section 26 of the said Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986 in relation to matters for which appeals lie before the said Tribunal. Section 1(3) of the Customs & Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986 provides that the said Act will come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint. Mr. Chatterjee has failed to produce notification issued by the Central Government and published in the official gazette to establish that the Customs & Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986 has come into force, though the Supreme Court has made incidental observation in paragraph 4.4 and paragraph 5.4 of the judgement in "Madras Bar Association V. Union of India" reported in (2014) 10 SCC 1 that the Customs & Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986 came into force on December 23, 1986. 14. With regard to the above submission of Mr. Chatterjee, I would like to point out why the Single Bench of the High Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to an order in respect of which appeal....