Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Chandigarh Administration vs Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 12 September, 1997
21. Mr. Bose has also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in
Chandigarh Administration v. Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.
reported at [(1998)8 SCC 326] for the proposition that it is settled law
that unless the allegations made in the writ petition and the relief to
that effect is also prayed for in the writ petition the High Court would
not be justified in issuing any order beyond the relief prayed for in the
writ petition. That judgment has no application in the facts of the
present case and is not relevant. Firstly, as a Coordinate Bench we do
not deem it fit or proper go into the correctness and/or legality of an
order passed by another Division Bench. Moreover, as stated
hereinbefore, the appellant has unequivocally accepted the said order,
and in fact, the issue with regard to the liability of the occupier's
share of the municipal rates and taxes had clearly fallen for
consideration in the earlier proceeding. Moreover, in the application
filed by the appellant for clarification of the order dated 24th April,
1998 at paragraph 1, the appellant had stated:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 15 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Budheswar Mahato And Ors. vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 29 January, 1991
11. On the aspect of limitation, counsel on behalf of the appellant
argued, that on a combined reading of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of
the judgment in Budeswar Mahato (supra) the period of limitation did
not stand extended, and the claim in the plaint for Rs.27,77,868.20/-
arose on account of Municipal Taxes payable for the period April 1984
to April 1995 so the suit filed in 1999 was beyond the period of
limitation.
1