2004 (2) TMI 344 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Held that - Once an appeal is filed before this Court and the same is entertained, the judgment of the High Court or the Tribunal is in jeopardy. The subject-matter of the lis unless determined by the last court, cannot be said to have attained finality. Grant of stay of operation of the judgment may not be of much relevance once this Court grants special leave and decides to hear the matter on merit. It has not been and could not be contended that even under the ordinary civil law the judgment of the appellate Court alone can be put to execution. Having regard to the doctrine of merger as also the principle that an appeal is in continuation of suit the decision of the Constitution Bench in S.S. Rathore 1989 (9) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA was to be followed in the instant case.

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the two-Judge Bench decision in P.K. Kutty Anuja Raja v. State of Kerala.
2. Legality of the revised freight rates imposed by the appellants.
3. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically articles 58 and 113.
4. Doctrine of merger and its impact on the limitation period.
5. Entitlement to benefits under sections 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the Two-Judge Bench Decision in P.K. Kutty Anuja Raja v. State of Kerala:
The judgment begins by noting that the correctness of the two-Judge Bench decision in P.K. Kutty Anuja Raja v. State of Kerala was doubted, leading to the referral of the matter to a three-Judge Bench. The Court ultimately concluded that the decision in P.K. Kutty did not lay down the law correctly and overruled it.

2. Legality of the Revised Freight Rates Imposed by the Appellants:
The respondents challenged the revised freight rates as unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory before the Railway Rates Tribunal. The Tribunal declared the levy as unreasonable, and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the special leave petition filed by the appellants.

3. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, Specifically Articles 58 and 113:
The appellants contended that the suits were barred by limitation under article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, arguing that the cause of action arose on the date of the Tribunal's judgment. The respondents argued that article 113 applied, and the limitation period began from the date of the Supreme Court's final order. The Court held that the period of limitation would begin from the date of the Supreme Court's order, not the Tribunal's judgment, and thus, the suits were filed within the prescribed period.

4. Doctrine of Merger and Its Impact on the Limitation Period:
The Court emphasized the doctrine of merger, stating that once special leave is granted, the judgment of the Tribunal is in jeopardy, and the limitation period begins from the date of the Supreme Court's final order. The Court cited Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala to support this view, explaining that the doctrine of merger means the original decree or order merges into the appellate decree or order.

5. Entitlement to Benefits Under Sections 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The trial court and the High Court held that the respondents were entitled to the benefits of sections 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allow for the exclusion of time during which the respondents were prosecuting their remedy bona fide in an appropriate forum. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, affirming that the suits were filed within the limitation period.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overruled the decision in P.K. Kutty, upheld the Tribunal's declaration of the freight levy as unreasonable, and determined that the suits filed by the respondents were within the limitation period, considering the doctrine of merger and the benefits under sections 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The matter was then directed to be placed before an appropriate Bench for disposal of the appeals on merits.

← Previous Next →