CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtFull Bench(1994) 10 SC CK 0003

New Delhi Municipal Committee vs State of Punjab, etc. etc.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 4 October 1994 · Citation: AIR 1995 SC 3 : (1994) 4 SCALE 390(1) : (1994) 6 SCC 619

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. · S. P. Bharucha, J · J. S. Verma, J · G. N. Ray, J · A. M. Ahmadii, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeals No''s. 1388-1390 (N) of 1975 with C.A. No''s. 92-125, 201, 1223, 1352, 2363 of 1980; 2912 of 1981, 47-66 of 1984; S.L.P. (C) No''s. 9533, 9416 and 10628 of 1981; C.M.P. No''s. 10327 and 30308 of 1988; 33826 of 1984, C.A. No''s. 1941 of 1981;
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 358 words
1.

These Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions are filed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court delivered on 14th March, 1975, in Civil Writ Petition No. 342 of 1969, State of Andhra Pradesh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, and against other orders of the same High Court which follow the aforementioned judgment. The respondents in these various Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions are the States of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tripura, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Orissa, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir and West Bengal. All these matters can conveniently be dealt with together.

2.

Each of the State has Immovable property within the Union Territory of Delhi. It is the contention of the States that they are exempt from the payment of property tax leviable under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as applicable to Delhi by virtue of the exemption granted to the property of a State by Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India. The contention of the States was upheld by the judgment aforementioned, which was, in the main, founded upon the opinion of this Court in RE. The Bill to amend Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, 1964-3 S.C.R. 787.

3.

Having duly considered the majority opinion in the Presidential Reference aforementioned, we find that the point at issue in these matters is covered thereby. The opinion was accepted by a Constitution Bench of this Court hearing a litigation inter partes. This was the decision in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-I B-ward, Hyderabad, and Another, . We are bound by this decision.

4.

This, however, does not detract from the plausibility of the contentions advanced before us on behalf of appellant and the intervener, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. These contentions, based upon Constitutional provisions, were not advanced in the cases aforementioned and require consideration. Large financial stakes are involved. Accordingly, these matters shall be placed before a nine-Judge Bench which shall decide whether the concerned observations made in the Sea Customs case require reconsideration.