9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code for interference with concurrent findings of lower courts, assessment of house tax on property not let out, balance of convenience in granting interim injunction, application of principles from Dewan Daulat Ram Kopur case, relevance of Delhi Rent Control Act provisions, discretion in granting injunction under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, consideration of appeal process under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and adherence to principles laid down by the Supreme Court in interference cases. Analysis: The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal against a judgment where the Delhi High Court interfered with the Trial Court and Appellate Court's findings that no interim injunction could be granted in a case involving house tax assessment by the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff had purchased a house free from liabilities, but the Corporation sought to recover house tax. The Trial Court initially granted an interim injunction, later vacated for lack of a prima facie case. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, considering the Corporation's need for property tax to carry out duties. The High Court agreed with the Appellate Court on the balance of convenience but held that a prima facie case existed due to erroneous assessment, citing principles from a previous Full Bench decision. The High Court granted the interim injunction based on this reasoning, which the Corporation challenged. The Supreme Court noted the misapplication of law by the High Court and emphasized the importance of balance of convenience in such cases. It also highlighted the relevance of the Specific Relief Act's provisions and the availability of appeal under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act for the assessee. The Supreme Court referenced a recent case to emphasize the need for adherence to principles governing interference under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code. It ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring that of the Appellate Court. The Court emphasized that the parties would bear their own costs in the matter. The judgment underscores the significance of balance of convenience, proper application of legal provisions, and adherence to established legal principles in cases involving injunctions and tax assessments.
|
