Case Summary
| Citation | Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969)1 SCC 110 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | The sale tax authorities took the sales tax from the petitioner from their customers and should be refunded on condition that petitioners passes the amount to the customers. The petitioners did not fulfil the condition, so the sales tax officer (respondent) forfeited an amount of the Bombay sales tax act. The petitioner in the case filed a writ petition in the Bombay high court challenging the order. The petition was dismissed and held that they were not liable to repay the amount. The appeal was filed after a ten-year delay and the appeal was dismissed due to delay. Doctrine of laches means lack of action in making legal proceedings. There is no time limitation but the appeal should be made under the reasonable time period. The petitioner filed the appeal after the reasonable time period. It is difficult to state down a precise period but a period of one year may be taken as the period after which the claim would be a stale claim unless the delay is justified. Article 32 gives the right to move to the court for enforcement of rights and the state cannot place any hindrance to the aggrieved person. Article 32 (2) of the constitution refers to a judicial power on the court unless there is a express provision, it must be exercised according to the fundamental principles of justice. The aggrieved person shall move to the court at the earliest possible time and explain the reason of delay. A person to whom money has been given by mistake shall be returned or repaid. Payment by mistake in section 72 means payment which was not legally due, the mistake is thinking that the money paid. Res Judicata means a thing that has been juridically decided on its merits and cannot be litigated between the same parties. |
| Issues | Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay? Whether the petition is barred by res judicata in view of this decision of the high court? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The present petitioner should have taken the right ground in the high court and taken it in the appeal to this court after the high court was against it. When the petitioner approaches the high court and fails, it could not be said that payments made by him therefore were not under a mistake of law, even the point on which the court ultimately strikes down the provision under which the payments were made was never raised in the high court. The court does not convert civil and criminal actions into proceedings for the obtainment of the writs. This court insists on bringing the decision before this court for review is the existence of another jurisdiction. The party claiming the fundamental rights must move the court before other rights came into existence. The court help those who are not slumber over their rights. If less time was prescribed, the fundamental right might be frustrated. The discretion of the time depends from case to case. There is no upper limit and lower limit. If the petitioner comes to the court 11 years after the possession was taken by the state, it would be dismissed on the ground of delay unless there is some reasonable explanation. The petitioner filed the petition and the order got quashed on the ground of delay as the appeal was made after 11 years and there was no reason for the delay. In the case of Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi, Rajasthan and anr., it held that there could be no waiver of the fundamental right founded on article 14 and only the fundamental rights which are intended to the benefit of a party can be waived. A right may be lost due to an earlier decision of a competent court or due to other reasons. |
| Judgement | According to the opinion of the majority, the petitions fails and gets dismissed with costs on the grounds of delay. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
1 comment
[…] v. State of UP AIR 1961 SC145747. Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969)1 SCC 11048. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC […]