»ymJQA1,g3_RE¢575 003.
IN THE HIGH COURT ore KARNATAKA, BANGALojr"¢:éf"L--«%VT:
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2969 if j" '
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTIcE'~ A s;~:"Bt)9ANN.é{' '
REGULAR SECOND APP§;A:,..No§'32§3 or
BETWEEN:
M/SBOMBAY saw MILLS, «.
KOTEKAR, V
MANGALORE. " ._ j'
PARTNERSHIP FIRMREPRFESEHTEE). '
BY ITS PARFNERS,' r
1.
sMT.NA’:’#z-srzsga
AGEL} ABou’;’__ — ‘
2. K.S.AIS}”;B4IA ‘ ” V’
w/o K.AE~3DULI.£§ ._ V ._
gem) ABOUT_56vYEARS
B?}i*H:,_ARE. RES§bING’AT KOTEKAR
..APPELL.AN’I’S
(BY -s”Rz~vI1¢A?7′:%r~.¥ ;§:t§voc.a.’:*E FOR
M/SASHQK HARARAHALLIASSCTS)
{THE REGIQNAL TRMSPORT OFFICER,
“”0?!”-1.NE!~§RU MAIDAN
V’ Vm..§zGALoRE-575 003.
‘ » {SR1 BHARAMAGOUDAR, HCGP)
..RESPONDEN’I”
THIS RSA £8 FiLED 15/8 100 OF CPC *
JUDGMENT’ AND DEGREE DA’i’ED19.08.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.155/2000 ON THE FILE OF’ THE PRL.VC§VIL”,JUDGE ”
(SR.DN} AND C.}M., MANGALORE, ALL{)W§§lC-. ‘&I’§IAE APPEALAND
SE’I”I’iNG ASIDE THE JUDGMENT D!§T_EB;~
26.7.2000 PASSED IN OS.NO.l12/ i998lOI\3. THE .0?
PR1… CIVILJUDGE (JR.I)N.) V V
THIS APPEAL COMING oN’iw:§1:–: ADMi::s1{>ré’-:T1?i’;sVVbAY,
THE coum DELIVERED THE 1=~oL1,Qw1Vm;_» ~ 9
.1 I353. §__Ifi E h’~-1;. _
The appellants tifi’s in
O.S.No.112/ 1993.?jrhe Ithe suit of the
‘ju:AiHg3:t1eii.:1t and decme dated
25.07.2069.” ‘1’he: “before the Lower Appellate
Court in The Lower Appellate Court on
has allowed the appeal by its
19.08.2006. The plaintifis are therefore
assailing the judgment of the Lower
V The parties are referred to in the sasne rank
H ‘A to them before the Txial Court for the purpose of
._ ‘e~ec$;aVen”:’ence and ciarity.
2. Since the Courts below have expressed divergent
opinion and in the nature of contentions put forth betweezx
J
«-
n
the parties, the oniy substantial question of law u§tfic}3-
for consideration in the present appeafis»-3,3 fd§1a1V§$i’e ”
“Whether the Lower Appeflgte was:
in ‘ g the appeal in
on merits of the contenfjiensee .§whe1i ‘the
Appeliate Court itselfjaad gygggthe suit was
not maintainable since pmvksion
P1’°Vidfifi in Motor
Vehic1es4T§e3xa§§i:t);;, fiat g V ”
3. appeal which
wouki neise!}éaiii;’:’V-..p’u.ipose of considering the
substaxltiai qfiesfiofi ef are as follows:
‘before the Trial Court claiming that
crane was used by them within their
prem’ of canym g timber and as such is
‘ not a \«E:hicle which is liable for payment of tax as
under The Kanaataka Motor Vehicles Taxation
(hereinaflzer zefermti to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). It
” that context, when the defendmt had demanded the tax
‘4 [in respect of the said vehicle, the plaintifié were before the
Trial Court contending that the seizure of the vehicie on
J
‘D
29.04.1997 as well as the demand for paymcntflif’ _
iiisgal, null and void. In this regard, it was ” .. V’
that the suit vehicle is not liable to tax fhc 4′
4. The defendant had ho1vcver:’sd”:§tiiaeé
the plaintiffs and had ” flrge’
payable in respect of thy ‘since said
vehicle was being used withsut the owner of
the vchicic was to tax had not
been on 29.04.1997 and the
amount giayfable ” and penalty has been
demand:-:dL from the owner. Hence the
Vtqtmstisfi iii’. «fvliéé saint: would not arise’ .
” of ths contentions urged, the
flamed as many as seven issues and three
issues for its consideration. UIfi1n’ ately, the Trial
on noticing the evidence tendered has deemed the suit
has held that the plaintifiis are cntiflcd to recover the
.2
sum of Rs.15,32(}[« with interest as indicated inttthe
judgment and decree.
6. when the defendant was before the ‘
Court, it was also contended that the ._snitj .t1ot ‘A u
mam’ tam’ able considering that there was 3]:
under the Act and further, since the %
under the Act has to consider the inaytnent or
othezwise of the motor not have
come to sueh..a’cone:£a1eion,»
7. Inu”tI¢1.e ” said contentions, the Lower
_ Court the provisions contained in the
.. the issue in question, the Lower Appellate
(§¢,git._;za;~é; there is a provision in Section 15 of
the Iiizt, Any person, eved by any order of a
H a’KafionV”A¢utho1’ity) made under this Act, may withm the
time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the
authority. Further, Section 15–A wherein revision
VA ” “Vvis pmvisied to the Commissioner for Transport was also
noticed by the Lower Appellate Court.
4
“a
Ir:-zmedy available under any of the Acts and whezfitvéiisifl’ V’
so, the Court, ‘l’ritmna1 or autho1ity~wshouki.V Ru
deciding the matter on its merits hut 7]:
parties to the appropriate f’0I’l1L+1”;\’v%.TJ1iC1’lA”\¥;’V(:)1il(‘1 fiheh
right of the parties.
10. That being so,~ when
the said provision has been iietwer Appellant
Court, it is no;~tié;;1:§t flue hf}-m_.l_@3ent and decree
passed hy the sustained, since the
sand’ jud§1.’a,e1′;t_ without junsd’ iction and
therefore, the 0:5-‘(1:VAi”‘ dated 26.07.2000, in any
0’ eve31T;~–;i;voia:1d have aside and to that extent the lower
was justified. At the same time, the
judgfifent vd£iix;e{.lA0::19.08.2006 passed by the Lower Appellate
‘Court ineieciding the rights of the parfies also cannot be
‘*iéustamVV0″‘ ed.
11. Hence, it is made clear that any of the
‘ ‘observations made by the Lower Appeliatc Court in
J
R.A.No.}.55/2000 teaching on the merits ~
contentions cannot be sustam ed, but the-‘VeeI;S_i:1ei*ation ” ”
on the aspect of the alternate 1emed3}».:avs§i3at:JEeA i
to file an appeal as held by the,
noticed and sustained and to exjtexztisa the
appeal in its entirety by 13.08.2006 ‘B set
aside. ‘ L’ ‘V
12. In of law flamed in the
present ” 1 faveiii 55 the appellants herein
and it is herein are entitled to avail
the remedy eif’ ‘ftlae provision of the Karnafaka
‘3’!e}3Ti:c1es Act, 1957. If such an alternate
_ by the appellants herein and on the
appeiiate considering the contentions put ferth on
‘its me;.£its,V”‘of the observations or finding rendered by the
” in the present proceedings would not bind the
the appellate authority would have to consider
T “..:i:fie’Tsame on its merits keeping in View the contentions put
“forih before it. It is also made clear that insofar as the
A
‘r~
provision contending that the appeal is to be ”
within the time provided, since in the fie
appellants herein went before the a;nci _”it;¢.Vvé1;rit
had been dccmad at the first t1§¢ saA” mi:
reversed by the Lower
authority shall not disxzzigs __cfi)n of
limitation subject to thc such appeal
Within six wwkg copy of this
order, since remedy in an
Henge, qiiesfions open for consideration,
t§:acA avppca. fis Via the above tnrms. No order as to
‘bqsta. ‘ 1 V
sd/..
Iudgé
‘u”»I.’fi)ms