Case Note & Summary
The second appeal arose from a suit filed by M/s Pandurang & Krishnarao Co., the owner of a truck, which was sold to defendant no.4 and subsequently transferred to defendant no.5. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the recovery of motor vehicle tax by the State authorities (defendants 1-3). The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by Order 9 Rule 9 CPC due to an earlier suit (Suit No.439/1978) being dismissed in default, and on merits held the plaintiff liable. On first appeal, the District Judge partly allowed the appeal, holding the suit maintainable only against defendants 4 and 5, and both the plaintiff and defendant no.5 liable for taxes. In the second appeal by defendant no.5, the High Court considered two maintainability issues. First, the court analyzed the Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act, 1958, and its appellate mechanism under Sections 14 and 14-A, which provide for appeals and revisions against taxation orders. Relying on Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. and State of A.P. v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao, the court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred where a special statute creates a right and provides an adequate alternative remedy. The court also upheld the first appellate court's finding that the fresh suit was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC against the State authorities (defendants 1-3) because the earlier suit on the same cause was dismissed in default. Noting that the substantial reliefs were directed solely against those defendants, the court concluded that the suit could not survive against the remaining defendants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the suit held non-maintainable.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Implied Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 9 CPC, Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act, 1958, Sections 14, 14-A - The court examined the scheme of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act, 1958, and noted that the Act provides for appeals and revisions against orders of taxation authorities, which constitutes an adequate alternative remedy - Held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred to entertain a suit challenging tax liability or recovery when the statute provides a comprehensive remedy (Paras 6-11).
B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata/Abatement - Order 9 Rule 9 CPC - The earlier suit No. 439/1978 filed by the same plaintiff seeking similar relief was dismissed in default, and the defendants 1-3 had filed written statements; thus, a fresh suit on the same cause of action is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC against those defendants - Held that the bar applies as the cause of action is continuous and the reliefs are identical (Paras 12-13).
C) Civil Suit - Maintainability - Relief-oriented - When a suit is barred against the principal defendants (State authorities) under statutory or procedural bars, and the substantial reliefs are directed only against them, the suit as a whole cannot be maintained against the remaining defendants against whom no substantial relief is claimed - Held that the suit must be dismissed in its entirety (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction against recovery of motor vehicle tax is maintainable, given (i) the implied bar of jurisdiction of civil court under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act, 1958, and (ii) the bar under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC due to earlier dismissal in default of a similar suit.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. The court held that the civil court's jurisdiction is impliedly barred under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act, 1958, as it provides an adequate alternative remedy. Additionally, the suit was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC against the State authorities (defendants 1-3). Since substantial reliefs were sought only against those defendants, the suit could not be maintained against the remaining defendants, thus the entire suit was non-maintainable.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction is impliedly barred when a statute creates a special right or liability and provides an adequate alternative remedy
- suit barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC if earlier suit dismissed in default on same cause of action
- when suit is barred against main defendants
- it cannot survive against remaining defendants if relief is integrally connected.
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 149
Second Appeal No. 343/1992
Mr. A.K. Choube, advocate for appellant; Mr. S.M. Bhagde, AGP for respondent
Ramesh s/o Sitaram Hiranwar
M/s Pandurang & Krishnarao Co., through its Managing Partner Shri R.K. Bangade; Pandurang Ramchandra Bangade (deceased, LRs Smt. Radhabai, Manohar, Lahanukumar); Krishnarao s/o Vithoba Shende; State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Transport & Communication; Regional Transport Authority through R.T.O., Nagpur; Revenue Recovery Officer & Tahsildar, Nagpur; Mahesh Gopikisan Agrawal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against recovery of motor vehicle tax
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought declaration that the recovery of tax was illegal and permanent injunction restraining recovery proceedings
Filing Reason
Failure to pay motor vehicle taxes led to recovery proceedings against plaintiff; plaintiff claimed it was not liable after sale of vehicle.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit as barred by Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and on merits; First appellate court partly allowed and held suit maintainable only against defendants 4 and 5, with plaintiff and defendant 5 liable for taxes.
Issues
Whether the civil suit is impliedly barred under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act, 1958 due to available alternative remedy?
Whether the suit is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC because of earlier dismissal in default of a similar suit?
If the suit is barred against defendants 1-3, can it survive against defendants 4 and 5?
Submissions/Arguments
Defendants contended that the civil court's jurisdiction is impliedly barred under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act as it provides adequate alternative remedy of appeal and revision.
Defendants also contended that the suit is not maintainable due to Order 9 Rule 9 CPC as the earlier suit No. 439/1978 on the same cause was dismissed in default.
Ratio Decidendi
The jurisdiction of a civil court is impliedly barred when a special statute creates a right or liability and provides an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy for the determination of that right or liability. The Bombay Motor Vehicle Taxes Act, 1958, with its appeal and revision provisions, constitutes such a comprehensive scheme, thereby excluding civil court jurisdiction. Further, a fresh suit on the same cause of action is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC if an earlier suit between the same parties was dismissed in default.
Judgment Excerpts
The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of civil nature except when its cognizance is expressly barred or barred by necessary implication. Admittedly, there is no provision under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Taxes Act which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The contention is that when the special law provides adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to the party aggrieved i.e. party who has received a notice calling upon him to pay tax, impliedly the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred.
It discerns from the above that special right or liability has been created under Motor Vehicles Tax Act and Motor Vehicles Tax Rules. It provides for determination of rights and liabilities and for that forums are prescribed. Remedies in the nature of appeal and revision available under the said Act, are at par with the remedies normally associated with Civil Court. In that view of the matter it will have to be held that the suit field by the plaintiff is impliedly barred.
Thus there is categorical finding of the first appellate court that “fresh suit is barred in view of provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure so far as respondent nos. 1 to 3 are concerned.” All substantial reliefs claimed were only against defendant nos. 1 to 3. If the present suit is barred against respondent nos. 1 to 3-original defendant nos. 1 to 3-can it survives only against defendant nos. 4 and 5. Answer to this has to be in negative for the simple reason that the substantial reliefs claimed are directed only against defendant nos. 1 to 3.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction alleging illegal tax recovery. Trial court dismissed suit on maintainability under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and merits. Plaintiff filed first appeal (R.C.A. No.75/1982) before District Judge, Nagpur; first appellate court partly allowed, holding suit maintainable only against defendants 4 and 5 and plaintiff and defendant 5 liable. Defendant no.5 filed second appeal under Section 100 CPC before High Court. High Court admitted appeal on maintainability grounds. After hearing, appeal dismissed, holding suit impliedly barred and barred under Order 9 Rule 9.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Motor Vehicles Taxes Act, 1958: 4, 12, 12-B, 14, 14-A
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9, Order 9 Rule 8, Order 9 Rule 9
- Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Taxes Rules, 1959: Rule 29, 29-A, 30
