Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Greave Cotton Limited, filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2010) before the 7th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, challenging the demand of octroi arrears for the period 1999 to 2001 by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The appellant contended that all dues were already cleared and the demand was illegal. The respondent corporation raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, arguing that under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (BPMC Act), a specific remedy of appeal was provided, which the plaintiff had not exhausted. The trial court, after hearing submissions and referring to the rulings in Abdulla Bin Ali vs. Galappa (AIR 1985 SC 577) and Dhulabai vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1969 SC 78), held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the plaintiff had an efficacious alternative remedy. The trial court decided the preliminary issue against the plaintiff, leading to the present appeal. In the appeal, the appellant's counsel relied on the Division Bench ruling in American Refrigerator Company vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (1991(2) Bom.C.R. 642), but the High Court noted that in that case, the writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed, which was not the situation here. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, holding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 406 of the BPMC Act. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the civil application was also disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar by Statute - Section 9 CPC, Section 406 Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - The issue was whether the Civil Court could entertain a suit challenging octroi demand when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 406 of the BPMC Act was available. The Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as the plaintiff had not exhausted the efficacious statutory remedy, and the suit was not maintainable. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the levy of octroi when a specific remedy of appeal is provided under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Civil Application No.2960 of 2013 disposed of.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court barred by express or implied provision
- Exhaustion of statutory remedy before approaching civil court
- Section 9 CPC and ouster of jurisdiction
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 122
First Appeal No.1169 of 2013 with Civil Application No.2960 of 2013
Mr. S.P. Kanuga for Appellant, Mr. G.H. Keluskar for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order on preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain suit challenging octroi demand.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the trial court's order holding that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the trial court's decision that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to availability of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 406 of BPMC Act.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (7th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune) by order dated 18.7.2012 on Exhibit 1 in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2010 held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Issues
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging octroi levy when a specific remedy of appeal is provided under Section 406 of the BPMC Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there was no express provision barring jurisdiction of Civil Court and relied on American Refrigerator Company case.
Respondent contended that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 406 of BPMC Act providing efficacious remedy of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a statute provides an efficacious remedy of appeal, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred, and the plaintiff must exhaust the statutory remedy before approaching the Civil Court.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned Judge after hearing submissions considered that efficacious remedy which is available to the plaintiff was not exhausted by the plaintiff and that there was no any other remedy to challenge the unlawful levy of octroi by the defendant.
Learned Judge considered the remedy of appeal statutorily available under Section 406 of the BPMC Act and held that plaintiff has to move to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to grant relief to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Procedural History
Appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2010 before 7th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. Respondent raised preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. Trial court decided issue against plaintiff on 18.7.2012. Appellant filed First Appeal No.1169 of 2013 before Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: Section 406
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9
