Indian Veterinary Research Institute ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 21 January, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Indian Veterinary Research Institute ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 21 January, 2026

Bench: Pankaj Mithal

                                                         1

                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 507/2011


                          INDIAN VETERINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IVRI)
                          THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR                   APPELLANT(S)


                                                      VERSUS

                          STATE OF U.P.
                          THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.           RESPONDENT(S)


                                                     ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 02.04.2008 passed by the High Court by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the attachment/demand of property tax was dismissed.

3. One of the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the property belongs to the Union of India and as such, is exempted from property tax under Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

4. However, from the pleadings in the writ petition, we do not find any averment to the above effect. The High Court proceeded on the premise that since the appellant- institute is an instrumentality of the State and an Signature Not Verified autonomous body though established by the Government of Digitally signed by SNEHA DAS Date: 2026.01.24 13:16:21 IST India, registered under the Societies Registration Act, Reason: 1860, it is not the same thing as being the Government of 2 India.

5. This apart, we notice from the pleadings that the institute is over 100 year old but no demand notice with regard to property tax was issued prior to the year, 2000. The appellant in response to the demand and the attachment has submitted various representations but they were not considered by the then Nagar Nigam Bareilly.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the entire material was neither placed before the High Court nor before us, we consider it appropriate to direct that the impugned notice of demand dated 14.12.2007 issued by the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly be treated as a show cause notice and the appellant may respond to it taking all possible objections which may be permissible to the appellant both on fact and in law, within a period of four weeks from today.

7. Once any such response is filed, it will be open for the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly to pass a comprehensive order fixing the liability of the appellant, if any, with regard to the payment of property tax depending upon the evidence/material adduced before it.

8. It is expected that the Nagar Nigam will pass an appropriate order in this regard within a period of three months from the date the appellant submits the response to the so called show cause notice dated 14.12.2007.

9. The present appeal stands disposed of in the above 3 terms.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………………………...J. [PANKAJ MITHAL] …………………………………………………...J. [S.V.N. BHATTI] NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 21, 2026.

SD
                                   4

ITEM NO.103                 COURT NO.9               SECTION III-A

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No.    507/2011

INDIAN VETERINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IVRI) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 21-01-2026 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Shivam Singhania, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Swarup, Adv. Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv. Ms. Sakshi, Adv.

Ms. Ashu Tomar, Adv.

Mr. Saurabh Rohilla, Adv. Mr. Kunal Vinayak, Adv.

Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambir, Adv. Ms. Prerna Dhal, Adv.

Mr. N. Vasakamurthy, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Subham Bahuguna, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Mahindra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR Ms. Neha Garg, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Adv.

Ms. Sumbul Ausaf, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The present appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     (SNEHA DAS)                                        (NIDHI MATHUR)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                              COURT MASTER (NSH)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders