Hanamanthappa and Another Vs. Chandrashekharappa and Others - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Feb-03-1997 |
| Spl. Leave Petn. (C) No. 1535 of 1997 |
| K. Ramaswamy and; G.T. Nanavati, JJ. |
| AIR1997SC1307; JT1997(2)SC528; (1997)2MLJ107(SC); 1997(2)SCALE59; (1997)9SCC688; [1997]1SCR846; 1997(1)LC808(SC) |
| Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rule 17, Rule 10A; |
| Hanamanthappa and Another |
| Chandrashekharappa and Others |
| From the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.96 of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.1650 of 1996 |
.....[1984] 1 scr 347, this court held that under s.4 of the central excise and salt act, 1944, only those expenses which were incurred on account of factors contributing to the product's value upto the date of sale or the date of deliv- ery at the factory. gate were liable to be included in the assessable value. on november 14/15, 1983 the court made a clarificatory order wherein it was stated that discounts allowed in the trade (by whatever name called) should be allowed to be deducted from the sale price having regard to the nature of the goods, if established under agreements or under terms of sale or by established practice, and that such allowance and the nature of discount should be known at or prior to the removal of the goods and should not be disallowed only because they were not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. the respondent-rubber factory claimed various deductions of the nature of post-manufacturing expenses for determining the assessable value of their products under s.4 of the act which were disallowed by the excise authorities. its writ petitions were, however, allowed by the high court. in appeals by the union of india for..........with amended averments in the plaint, necessarily it must be treated to be a fresh plaint and not one after representation to the proper court. we find no force in the contention. the object of order 7, rule 10a is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum or represent to the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. in substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the high court. therefore, it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court of district munsiff, navalgund. it is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under order vi, rule 17, c. p. c. at best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law. under those circumstances, we do not think that (here is any error of law committed by the high court in giving the above direction.4. the special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, made in C.R.P. No. 1650/96 on July 9, 1996:
2. Admittedly, the respondents filed O.S. No. 158/94, in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. On grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. Accordingly, after making necessary amendment to the plaint the respondents represented the suit, which came to be numbered as O. S. No. 10/91, in Civil Court at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without seeking permission for amendment of the plaint as required under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. The High Court dismissed the petition.
3. It is contended by Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that since the petition had been filed with amended averments in the plaint, necessarily it must be treated to be a fresh plaint and not one after representation to the proper Court. We find no force in the contention. The object of Order 7, Rule 10A is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum or represent to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the Court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the Court of District Munsiff, Navalgund. It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law. Under those circumstances, we do not think that (here is any error of law committed by the High Court in giving the above direction.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.