Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed against the order dated 7th April 2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit as barred under Section 269-UN and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The plaintiff, Sasmita Investments Ltd., a company engaged in property investment, had sought a declaration that a third compulsory purchase order dated 12th September 2002 regarding a property in Mumbai stood abrogated. The dispute arose from a series of agreements: in 1981, the Mulanis (defendants 3-18) and Omprakash Navani (defendant 19) agreed to sell unutilized FSI to Seawell Interdrill Services Pvt. Ltd. In 1991, they entered an agreement for sale of the suit property to Seawell. Following the introduction of Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, Form 37-I was filed. The appropriate authority issued a first compulsory purchase order on 27th September 1991, which was set aside by the High Court. A second compulsory purchase order on 29th June 1993 was also set aside and remanded. The third compulsory purchase order on 12th September 2002 directed purchase of the property, and the central government vested title under Section 269-UE. However, the appropriate authority failed to tender the apparent consideration to the vendors within the statutory period under Section 269-UG. Consequently, the plaintiff claimed that under Section 269-UH(1), the property re-vested in the vendors from 31st October 2002. The vendors terminated the earlier agreement, and the plaintiff purchased the property from the Mulanis and Navani via a conveyance deed dated 16th May 2006. In the suit, the plaintiff sought declarations that the third compulsory purchase order had abrogated and that the plaintiff was the absolute owner, along with an injunction. The defendants contested jurisdiction, raising preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC. The Single Judge framed three issues: whether the suit was barred under Section 269-UN and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act; limitation; and locus standi. The Single Judge answered the first issue in the affirmative, holding that the suit was barred by the express provisions of the IT Act, and dismissed the suit without deciding the other issues. The present appeal challenged that dismissal. The appellate judgment was reserved on March 13, 2025 and pronounced on April 25, 2025. The provided text does not contain the court's analysis or final order on the appeal.
Headnote
A) Jurisdiction - Civil Court - Bar under Section 269-UN and Section 293, Income Tax Act, 1961 - The suit seeking declaration that a compulsory purchase order under Chapter XX-C stood abrogated was dismissed as barred by the express provisions of the Income Tax Act excluding civil court jurisdiction. Held that the suit is not maintainable. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit is barred under Section 269-UN and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 269-UN of Income Tax Act
- 1961 bars jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any matter which the appropriate authority is empowered to determine under Chapter XX-C
- Section 293 of Income Tax Act
- 1961 bars any suit to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under the Act
- Civil court's jurisdiction is ousted where the statute provides a complete machinery and expressly excludes jurisdiction
- A suit for declaration that a compulsory purchase order stood abrogated falls within the bar under Section 269-UN and Section 293
