Civil review
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 22 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Hello Respected friendes,
there is a query related civil review that" if a civil review has been decieded on merit (as rejected) then can we move to revision court against the order!
if yes then pls. elobrate !
thanks in advance.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 22 October 2011
Har Devi Asnani vs State of Rajasthan and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 27 Sep 2011]
(A) Practice & Procedure - Administrative - Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, s. 65(1) - Property valuation - Revision before the Board of Revenue - Pre-condition deposit - Legality - Appellant purchased a plot and registered a Sale Deed - Sub Registrar did not accept the valuation made in the Sale Deed and appointed an Inspection Officer for valuation - Inspection Officer reported that appellant undervalued the property - Additional Collector (Stamps) served show cause notice to the appellant and the appellant replied thereto - Additional Collector (Stamps), after hearing, directed the appellant to pay deficit stamp duty, deficit registration charges and penalty - Appellant filed writ petition - Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had alternative remedy by way of revision before the Board of Revenue - DB, in appeal, affirmed the Single Judge order - Appellant, in the meantime, filed another writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to s. 65(1) of the Act which provided that no revision application should be entertained unless it was accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of fifty percent of the recoverable amount - Appellant contended that the pre-condition of payment of fifty percent of the recoverable amount for entertaining a revision petition was arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional - HC, by relying upon the decision of another DB of the HC in M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State & Ors., 2007 INDLAW RAJ 114, held that the proviso to s. 65(1) was constitutionally valid - Whether the HC was right in holding that the decision of SC in Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2004 INDLAW SC 258, was not applicable to the instant case - Held, HC had rightly taken the view that the decision of SC in the case of Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others was not applicable to the challenge to the proviso to s. 65(1) of the Act inasmuch as the provision of sub-s. (2) of s. 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, requiring deposit of 75% of the demand related to deposit at the stage of first adjudication of the demand and was therefore held to be onerous and oppressive, whereas the proviso to s. 65(1) of the Act in the instant case requiring deposit of 50% of the demand was at the stage of revision against the order of first adjudication made by the Collector and cannot by the same reasoning held to be onerous and oppressive - Hence, the proviso to s. 65(1) of the Act was constitutionally valid - Order accordingly.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 November 2011
prabhakar ji many many thanks for u being agree!\
but what will hapen when u will not agree with this absolute expertness!
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 November 2011
prabhakar ji many many thanks for u being agree!\
but what will hapen when u will not agree with this absolute expertness!
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 04 November 2011
If you want me to disagree with then you need to tell me facts.Such as for what relief the suit was ?was review sought under 114 read with order XLVII of the CPC.WAS APPEAL THE REMEDY BUT NOT EXERCISED?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 04 November 2011
If you want me to disagree with then you need to tell me facts.Such as for what relief the suit was ?was review sought under 114 read with order XLVII of the CPC.WAS APPEAL THE REMEDY BUT NOT EXERCISED?
