9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (11) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 14, admeasuring 4 acres 31 gunthas and survey No. 18/1 admeasuring 1 acre 5 gunthas, both situated at Tajnapur. On June 22, 1972, the said Officer issued proclamation of sale under rule 38 of the said rules read with r. 52(2) declaring that those two lands would be sold by public auction at 1.00 p.m. on July 13, 1972. In pursuance of this proclamation, the sale was held on July 13, 1972, and survey No. 14 was knocked down for Rs. 75,500 and survey No. 18/1 for Rs. 15,500. The upset price for these two lands had been fixed at Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 15,000, respectively. On August 10, 1972, Gopaldas Mohta filed an application before the TRO purporting to be under r. 61 read with r. 87 of the said rules. In this application, he contended that the sale held on July 13, 1972 was bad, firstly, because it was held within 30 days from the date of proclamation and as such in contravention of the provision contained in r. 55 of the Second Schedule and, secondly, that a much larger property had been put to sale for recovering a meagre amount of Rs. 4,365. It was contended that material irregularities had been committed in the conduct of sale, which had resulted in a loss to the petitioner. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead of filing an appeal under r. 36. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, he preferred an appeal to the Tax Recovery Commissioner, who is respondent No. 3 herein. Since he had preferred the appeal, he was allowed to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. This was done on February 12, 1973. It appears that along with the appeal which Gopaldas Mohta had filed before the Tax Recovery Commissioner on November 23, 1972, he had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the same day. It may be mentioned here that r. 86 prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days from the date of the order appealed against for filing an appeal and obviously the appeal preferred on November 23, 1972, had not been filed within 30 days from September 29, 1972, when the order had been passed by the TRO. At this stage, we are not concerned with the grounds which Gopaldas Mohta stated in this application for condoning the delay. The TRO, respondent No. 3, first took up the application for condonation of delay for consideration. It appears that it was contended on behalf of the auction-purchaser, namely, respondent No. 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh s. 5 of the Limitation Act by itself speaks of a " Court ", sub-s. (2) of s. 29 would make the said provision applicable to proceedings before other authorities also if the special or local law under which the period of limitation is prescribed, does not exclude the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act. Mr. Pandit contends that the TRO has not taken into consideration this aspect while considering the application for condonation of delay. Mr. Pandit further contended that even on merits the order passed by the TRO could not be sustained, inasmuch as the sale had been held in clear contravention of rr. 52 and 55 as the property worth more than necessary to satisfy the certificate had been sold and the sale had been held within 30 days from the date of the proclamation. Mr. Pandit contended that these are not only material irregularities, but illegalities, which vitiated the sale and hence it was necessary to set aside the same in this writ petition irrespective of the fact that the appeal filed by Gopaldas Mohta before the Tax Recovery Commissioner had not been entertained as barred by limitation. Mr. R. G. Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, has, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing out of the order made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal referred to the High Court. By an application dated March 20, 1964, the petitioners requested the Tribunal to refer the questions of law raised therein to the High Court. Now, the time prescribed by ss. 23 and 34 of the Acts stated above for such application was respectively sixty and ninety days from the date of the decision of the Tribunal. On August 2, 1965, the petitioners made another application to the Tribunal praying for a condonation of the delay caused in filing the earlier application on certain grounds. This latter application was rejected by the Tribunal observing that it had no power to condone the delay. It was against this order that the petitioners moved this court under arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution. The question, therefore, which fell for consideration in that writ petition, was whether s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was applicable to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal by virtue of sub-s. (2) of s. 29 of the said Act. The Division Bench considered the provisions contained in subs. (2) of s. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and also the provisions contained in sub-s. (2) of s. 29 of the Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication has to be made under s. 37(1) of the said Tenancy Act Cannot be termed as a court and even so the learned single judge has held that s. 14 of the Limitation Act was applicable to such proceedings by virtue of s. 29(2). In Raghunath Agarwalla v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 461, Tax LR 2075 (Orissa), a Division Bench of Orissa High Court has taken the view that by virtue of s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions contained in ss. 4 to 24 thereof apply to proceedings under the Orissa Sales Tax Act to the extent they are not inconsistent with any specific provisions in the said Act. It has held that, though the Tribunal under the said Sales Tax Act is not a " Court ", s. 5 of the Limitation Act applies to a reference application made to the Tribunal under s. 24(1) of the said Act by virtue of s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s. 5 to condone the delay in making reference application In this case the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court has considered various rulings of the High Courts, including the one of this court in Vasanji Ghela's case [1967] Mah LJ 855. It is after a careful consideration of these authorities that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
