Dr Vikram Mehra And ANR v. Debts Recovery Tribunal I Chandigarh And ORS
! "#$ "
%
"
"#' & "
% ()
!"
*+,)-*.
!/
0% 1
23 & /" (45+ % )--6 % " (-7 % )-*4
% %).6 %
8
9 " (-7 % )-*4
/ %
: & %
7 *. % (7*.-;)765;6 7*.*;)765;6 (,,5!!</ & 1" = 2 "
&
& %
%&
(,& () % %
%
% %
() >" (755;)--- ? ()5-;*++.@ (,& &
-,*-)--*
>%% !//
%
%
9
%
% & 7**-)--)
& %
& %!
)*-7)--7A& %
% %
& &
"
(7);)--)&
&
%
& %
>%% -,-,)--7
% & -4-,)--7
& &
% >%%
&
& %
"
( & 0% 1
"23 & & )**)--, %
% :
%
>%%
%
%
,,)--7 4,)--7
% 6%
B " *+570%
1"%*+5723% % %).6
& ()& % *+,)-*.
% % /"(45+;)--6&
!/
:
% # 6 %
" % *+57 & %
#
#$ %% $ !&'&( ) *+,- +
.$- / + Vs.
0
2 3
+
0*4 ),*-)-*4
(
%
%
6%
"%*+57&
%% %
C
%% & %
%
#
% *+,- +
.$- / + 5,%*
% # *, %
" % *+57
&
:
/
%
#
%)
7
Vs.
8 * 1,$+*4 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 475.
>
%% () %
& %
% & )**)--,
& %
*4))--,
%
#
% )7 %* + 9:
;* < 7 ,2- Vs. --*"
.
-$ !
+,
+,
$<,
+ 0 *
9$ +;- 1 *+
+ 0*4 (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 108 # *, %
" % *+57
%
&
9 % &
*,%
"%*+57
% # 6%
"%*+57 %
%
bonafidely
:E /
%
7
5,%*
9 & &
# *, %
" % *+57 &
=
%
" " *++5 0%
1"%*++523/
% &
& %
# " & &
# %$ & &
%
& %
:
& % % %
"%*++5
:%
& %
"%*++5
&
%
# % $ %
'
% # *, & # 6%
"%*+57%
& %
" % # 7, %
" % *++5
%
: C
& :
inter alia,
# *,%
" %*+57
%
# %$ &
A
%F :F $
*,%
"%*+57 &%# 7,?7@ %
" % *++5
&
A2 #
# % $ &
%# *,%
"%*+57
"%*++5 /&
#
# *,%
"%*+57
"%*++5 A&
% 7 5,%* % () & % $ # 57 %
( A
G&
" *+6+0% 1
"%*+6+23
'
%A
G&
F
>
7*))-*-
$ & %
%
D %
A
7**))-*- &
7
% 5+%
"%*+6+
7**))-*-& & %
A
47)-*7 &
%
&
7
%
% % % )55
%
& &
% % % %
& $
"%*+57 A&
&
& & & %
& &
A
"%*+6+ C
%
"%*+57
A2 #
%
9
% 7 5,%* & 9 () H 7 %
" & # *,%
"%*+57 &
%& ! "We have already noticed above that a three−Judge Bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow vs.
M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur (supra) had considered the question of applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 before Revision Authority under U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. This Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment has categorically
&
held that Judge(Revisions) Sales Tax exercising jurisdiction under Section 10 are not courts but mere administrative tribunals. In CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, the question was with regard to applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The three−Judge Bench categorically held that the Judge(Revision) being not a Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings before such tribunal. Before three−Judge Bench which heard CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Madan Lal Das & Sons (supra) unfortunately the earlier judgment of equal strength i.e. three−Judge Bench in CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants was not cited. CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants judgment was on the same issue i.e. applicability of the Limitation Act in reference to Judge(Revision) exercising the jurisdiction under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants(supra) has held that Limitation Act is not applicable to such authority. Thus, three−Judge judgment was neither noticed and a contrary view was expressed in CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Madan Lal Das & Sons. We have also noticed that there has also been earlier three−Judge Bench judgment in Nityananda, M. Joshi and others. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others(supra)
where it was held that Limitation Act applies only to suits, applications and appeals filed in Courts. The judgment of this Court in CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Madan Lal Das & Sons having not referred to earlier judgments of equal strength, we are persuaded to follow the earlier three−Judge Bench judgment of this Court in CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants."
A2 #
# )+?)@%
"%*+57 &
%
9 :
; & %
%
%# *,%
"%*+57
& %
%
% %
Whether speaking /reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No