Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

1981 (11) TMI 192

n which thirteen petitioners had joined - Held that: - each of the petitioners in the present writ petition, has his own distinct and separate cause of action arising out of his liability to pay the tax individually under the impugned taxing provision. Since the present writ petition embraces more than one of such causes of action and separate relief's sought therein, namely, to restrain the respondents from enforcing the impugned taxing provision against each of the petitioners, are based on them (such causes of action), it (the present writ petition) is chargeable with the aggregate amount of the court-fees with which the petitions would be chargeable under the Act ' if separate writ petitions had been presented in respect of several causes of action, a required by sub-section (3) read with substitution (4) of Section 6 of the Act. - Under Clause (S) of Article I of Sch. II of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with sub-sees. (3) and (4) of Section 6 of that Act, each of the petitioners, in the present writ petition, is liable to pay thereon a separate court-fee of ₹ 100, as if he had presented a separate writ petition. - Appeal dismissed. - .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

on. Such a petition shall be treated as equivalent to the filing of such number of writ petitions as there are petitioners and shall be numbered accordingly and the court fee payable on such writ petition shall , be numbered accordingly and the court-fee pay able on 'such writ petition shall be the same as payable on the number of writ petitions, w I hen filed separately ...... (2) Several persons having common or joint interest but not seeking any individual relief may file a single petition. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-rule, persons shall be considered to have common interest if the relief sought for by a single petitioner, if granted, would ensure to the benefit of the other petitioners, even if they had not joined as petitioners, irrespective of 'the interim relief's sought for, by the petitioners. Provided that no. final individual relief, consequential or otherwise, is sought for in the petition" - 7. Shri Kashinathrao Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants petitioners contended that the petitioners have a common interest in the subject matter of controversy in the writ petition inasmuch as they have all challenged therein the constitutional .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ore we can proceed to deal with the question as to whether sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of R. 7 of the Rules, applies to the present case. 10. As there are decided cases, which throw light on this point, we shall refer to them at the outset. 11. In Rainbow Dyeing Factory v. Industrial Tribunal , the facts were these . By its order, the Government of Madras had referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for adjudication, various issues relating to conditions of service of employees in 30 industrial concerns engaged in dyeing yarn and cloth. The Tribunal's common award was impugned in a single writ petition by those 30 concerns. The Madras High Court, on consideration of the said facts, ruled that the interest of the 30 concerns although similar, were several and distinct and therefore each of them had to file a separate writ petition and pay the court-fee thereon. 12. The above ruling was followed by this Court in Mount Corporation v. Director of Industries (AIR 1965 Mys 143 : 1964-1 Mys LJ 513). There the petitioners had sought to challenge in one writ petition the actions of the State Government on the basis of which their applications for licence of stainless steel. were rej .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

provision. Each of them has so joined as he stands to suffer an individual injury under the impugned taxing provision. The injury which each of them suffers, can only be regarded as separate and distinct injury though it may be similar to the one suffered by others. Hence, each of the petitioners has only a separate and distinct interest and not common or joint interest in the subject matter of controversy in the writ petition, that is, the impugned taxing provision. Thus, though on the authority of the decided cases and on principle, the interest of each of the petitioners in the subject matter of controversy in the writ petition, should be regarded as separate and distinct and not common, the Explanation to sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules speaks to the contrary. Shri Kashinaihrao contended that if the impugned taxing provision is declared to be unconstitutional in a writ petition presented by one of them, that provision cannot be enforced against other petitioners even if they had not joined as petitioners because of the deemed meaning given by the explanation to the term 'common interest'. Shri Kashinathrao is right in relying on that explanation to contend that the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

l separate and distinct interest (causes of action), as provided for in sub-section (3) read with sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act. 19. The question whether it can be said that, a common writ petition embraces two or more causes of action as would make the petitioners therein liable for payment of separate court-fees as if each of them had presented separate writ petitions, having come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Mota Singh v. State of Haryana , it has answered that question thus: "Having regard to the nature of these cases where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. But it is too much to expect that different truck owners having no relation with each other either as partners or any other legally subsisting jural relationship of association of person would be liable to pay only one set of court-fee simply because they have joined as petitioners in one petition. Each one has his own cause of action arising out of the liability to pay tax individually and the petition of each one would be a separate and independent petition a .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||