9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie case for temporary injunction 2. Legality of octroi duty recovery 3. Enforceability of bilateral agreement (Ex. 5) 4. Applicability of promissory estoppel 5. Delay in challenging the Notification Detailed Analysis: 1. Prima Facie Case for Temporary Injunction: The court outlined three conditions for granting a temporary injunction: (i) A prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, indicating a serious question to be tried. (ii) The necessity of the court's interference to prevent irreparable injury. (iii) Comparative mischief or inconvenience from withholding the injunction should be less than that from granting it. The court emphasized that Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, states that an injunction cannot be granted when an equally efficacious relief is obtainable by other usual modes or proceedings, except in cases of breach of trust. 2. Legality of Octroi Duty Recovery: The appellant argued that the Municipal Board, Lakheri, was not entitled to recover octroi duty as no Notification under Section 104 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, was published. The court noted that a Notification under Section 104(2) had been published in the Rajasthan Gazette on June 10, 1968, detailing octroi rates, which was authenticated by the Deputy Secretary. Furthermore, the area covered by the factory and mining lease was included within the municipal limits as per the Notification published on December 25, 1975. The court found that the octroi duty leviable under the 1968 Notification automatically applied to the newly included factory area, rendering the appellant's primary argument invalid. 3. Enforceability of Bilateral Agreement (Ex. 5): The appellant claimed that the agreement (Ex. 5) with the State Government excluded the factory area from municipal limits and thus from octroi duty. The court held that the agreement was not enforceable because the State Government cannot fetter its future executive or legislative actions. The court cited the principle that contracts opposed to public policy are unlawful, and the State cannot deprive residents of their right to be governed by local bodies like municipalities or gram panchayats. 4. Applicability of Promissory Estoppel: The appellant did not raise the plea of promissory estoppel in the initial application, which is a mixed question of fact and law requiring specific pleadings. The court noted the absence of any factual foundation for the plea, such as specific acts performed by the appellant relying on the agreement (Ex. 5). The court also discussed the divergence of opinions in Supreme Court decisions regarding promissory estoppel against the State Government. It concluded that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the Government from discharging its duties under the law, particularly when it involves legislative functions. 5. Delay in Challenging the Notification: The appellant challenged the validity of the Notification dated December 17, 1975, only in 1979, after a delay of more than three years. The court held that equitable relief requires timely prosecution of claims. The learned District Judge cited Bhagalpur Rolling Mills v. Bhagalpur Electric Supply Company Ltd., stating that undue delay in seeking relief can justify the court's refusal to grant an injunction. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction. The balance of convenience did not favor the appellant, and there was no irreparable loss from withholding the injunction. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
|
