Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 20, 1992

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471916

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/471916
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Om Prakash and; D.S.Sinha, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 20, 1992
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 4307 of 1981
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Property - rate of collection charges - Rules 255 and 259 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - rate mentioned in Rules - can be changed by amendment in Rule or Statute - Circular passed enhancing the rate - rate cannot be increased by Circular - it should be issued for area not covered under S...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - Rules 255 and 259;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chemopulp Tissues Ltd.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - Rules 255 and 259;
Reported In: 1999(2)AWC1247

Excerpt

property - rate of collection charges - rules 255 and 259 of u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms rules, 1952 - rate mentioned in rules - can be changed by amendment in rule or statute - circular passed enhancing the rate - rate cannot be increased by circular - it should be issued for area not covered under statute - held, collection charges cannot be recovered on enhanced rate. - .....the citations (annexure-4 to the writ petition) is now confined to collection charges sought to be recovered at the rate of 10% which has been disputed by the petitioner.3. no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and. therefore, the fact that the recovery proceedings were withdrawn remains un controverted.4. the contention of the petitioner is that only movable property was attached and no sale was effected and, therefore, under rule 259 read with rule 255 of the u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms rules. 1952 (briefly. 'rules, 1952'), collection charges can be recovered at the rate of 3.75% only and not more than that. it is notdisputed by the standing counsel that the rate of 75 paise under rule 255 and the rate of rs. 3 under rule 259 when the amount exceeds rupees one thousand, of the rules. 1952, have not been amended so far. the standing counsel, however, urges that the rate has been enhanced by the circular dated 30.8.1975 (annexure-7 to the petition). the question for consideration is whether the rate prescribed by the rules, 1952, by the rule making authority can stand amended by the aforesaid circular? when the rates have been prescribed by the statute or by the rule making authority empowered to make rules under the statute, such rates can stand amended only by a valid amendment in the rules or in the statute, as the case may be. the rate prescribed by the rules validly made, cannot be enhanced by a circular or executive order. circular may be issued only to cover up an area which is not occupied by the statutory rules. once the rules are framed to regulate something, no circular can be issued in derogation of those rules.5. for the reasons, we find substance in the submission of the petitioners' counsel that the collection charges cannot be recovered at the rate of 10%.6. in the result, the petition is allowed. the citation dated nil (annexure-4 to the writ petition) and attachment effected on 14.2.1981 are quashed. collection.....

Full Judgment

Om Prakash, J.

1. The short controversy in this petition is whether respondents are entitled to recover collection charges at the rate of 10% in view of the Circular dated 30.8.1975 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition] issued by the respondent No. 1 or at the rate of 3.75% as averred by the petitioner.

2. The facts as succinctly stated, are that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the recovery of loan taken by the petitioner from U. P. Financial Corporation and from the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd. For the recovery of loan, citation (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was issued. But the recovery proceedings were withdrawn without resorting to sale. The citations (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) is now confined to collection charges sought to be recovered at the rate of 10% which has been disputed by the petitioner.

3. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and. therefore, the fact that the recovery proceedings were withdrawn remains un controverted.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that only movable property was attached and no sale was effected and, therefore, under Rule 259 read with Rule 255 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. 1952 (briefly. 'Rules, 1952'), collection charges can be recovered at the rate of 3.75% only and not more than that. It is notdisputed by the standing counsel that the rate of 75 paise under Rule 255 and the rate of Rs. 3 under Rule 259 when the amount exceeds rupees one thousand, of the Rules. 1952, have not been amended so far. The standing counsel, however, urges that the rate has been enhanced by the Circular dated 30.8.1975 (Annexure-7 to the petition). The question for consideration is whether the rate prescribed by the Rules, 1952, by the Rule Making Authority can stand amended by the aforesaid Circular? When the rates have been prescribed by the Statute or by the Rule Making Authority empowered to make Rules under the Statute, such rates can stand amended only by a valid amendment in the Rules or in the Statute, as the case may be. The rate prescribed by the Rules validly made, cannot be enhanced by a Circular or executive order. Circular may be issued only to cover up an area which is not occupied by the Statutory Rules. Once the Rules are framed to regulate something, no Circular can be issued in derogation of those Rules.

5. For the reasons, we find substance in the submission of the petitioners' counsel that the collection charges cannot be recovered at the rate of 10%.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The citation dated Nil (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and attachment effected on 14.2.1981 are quashed. Collection charges will be recovered from the petitioner only at the rate of 3.75%.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1992 Same Parties Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge Om Prakash and; D.S.Sinha, JJ. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 195...

Property