Ravula Vengala Reddi, Having Died, His Heir and Widow, Ravula Vengamma Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment
|Judge||Abdur Rahim and ;Sundara Aiyar, JJ.|
|Appellant||Ravula Vengala Reddi, Having Died, His Heir and Widow, Ravula Vengamma|
|Respondent||The Secretary of State for India in Council|
madras revenue recovery act (ii of 1864), section 59 - demand by government--madras irrigation cess act (mad. act vii of 1865)--tirvajasti levied under the act, suit for refund of--limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, article 16. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various.....1. in this case, judgment of the lower appellate court must be reversed on the question of limitation. the district judge held that section 59 of the revenue recovery act applied and not article 16 of the second. schedule of the limitation act.2. in second appeals nos. 838 and 844 of 1910 and 240 to 244 of 1911, we went into the question fully and we came to the conclusion that where there is a mere demand by the government purporting to be made under the revenue recovery act, such a demand will not makes section 59 of that act applicable as amounting to a proceeding under the act. the judgment of the district judge must, therefore, be reversed on this point and that of the district munsif restored with costs in this and the lower appellate court.
1. In this case, judgment of the lower Appellate Court must be reversed on the question of limitation. The District Judge held that Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act applied and not Article 16 of the second. Schedule of the Limitation Act.
2. In Second Appeals Nos. 838 and 844 of 1910 and 240 to 244 of 1911, we went into the question fully and we came to the conclusion that where there is a mere demand by the Government purporting to be made under the Revenue Recovery Act, such a demand will not makes Section 59 of that Act applicable as amounting to a proceeding under the Act. The judgment of the District Judge must, therefore, be reversed on this point and that of the District Munsif restored with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court.