# PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 189
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-12-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1315 of 1972
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, A. K. Mukherjea
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/punjab-national-bank-v-new-delhi-municipal-committee-5799
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

189·
Punjab Municipd Act, 1911-S. 66 and 61-Whether NDMC can
include a building retrospectively in the assessment list by amendment.
The appellant is the owner of No. 5 Parlmment Street, New Delhi.
The
build~ng was not entered in the assessment list to be operative
during April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959, although it was occupied
after completion on July I, 1968. Under S. 67 of the Punjab Municipal
Act, 19! 1, the NDMC by a resolution dated November
2(),
1959
amended the assessment list which was operative for the period April 1,
1959, to March 31, 196() and imposed house tax· on the building for
the year 1959-6()_
Section 67 of the Act provides that the Committee may at
any
time amend the list after giving notioe to ainy person affected by the
amendment and $ub. s. (2) provides that any interested person may
tender bis objection and he -shall be give.I) an opportunity
of
being
heard etc.
The only questio,n that arose for decision before this Court
was
whether the Respondent was entitled to include the building
in
the
assessment list, which was operative for the period April 1, 1959 to
March 31, 196()_
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) The assessment list for the yOl!r
commencing
from
April ), 1959, had to be settled by March 31, 1959, at the latest. This
list was liable to be amended under S. 67 even after March 31, 1959
on any of the grounds mentioned in . that Section.
Sec. 66 does not
say that the amendment of the assessment list should have been made
before March 31, 1959. The expression "subject to such amendment
as may thereafter be duly made" iin Sec. 66 would indicate that the
amendment of the list could be made even after March 31, 1959 as
Sec. 67 pro,ides for amendment of the list "at any time." [193BC]
It is not necessary that the assessment list should have been amended before March 31, 1959, in order that the Municipal Committee may
impose house tax on the building for the period from April 1, 1959
to March 31. 1960. An amendmant of the list under S. 67 wlls permissible on any of the grounds mentioned in the Section
even
after
March 31, 1959, as otherwise, the expression "at any time" would have
no meaning.
[193EF]
(ii) Further, the meaning of the expression "at
any
time"
will
depend upon the context in which the expression occurs. The expres·
sio.n "at any time" occurrin~ in S. 67 read with the word "thereafter"
in S. 66 can only lead to the conclu•ion that the amendment of the
list in question was permissible even after March 31, 1959. [19SA]
Central Bank of India Ltd. Amritsar v. The Hartford Fire Insurance
Co. Ltd. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1288; Exparte Norris in Re Sahler 17 Q.B.D.
728 refe{Ted to
·
·
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
ICIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1315 of
1972.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated
October 28, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 93 of 1967.
A
M. C. Chagla, S. K. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appelB
lant.
D. D. Chawla, H. K. Puri and S. K. Dhingra, for the respondent.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
v.
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
December 22, 1972
[K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.J
189·
Punjab Municipd Act, 1911-S. 66 and 61-Whether NDMC can
include a building retrospectively in the assessment list by amendment.
The appellant is the owner of No. 5 Parlmment Street, New Delhi.
The
build~ng was not entered in the assessment list to be operative
during April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959, although it was occupied
after completion on July I, 1968. Under S. 67 of the Punjab Municipal
Act, 19! 1, the NDMC by a resolution dated November
2(),
1959
amended the assessment list which was operative for the period April 1,
1959, to March 31, 196() and imposed house tax· on the building for
the year 1959-6()_
Section 67 of the Act provides that the Committee may at
any
time amend the list after giving notioe to ainy person affected by the
amendment and $ub. s. (2) provides that any interested person may
tender bis objection and he -shall be give.I) an opportunity
of
being
heard etc.
The only questio,n that arose for decision before this Court
was
whether the Respondent was entitled to include the building
in
the
assessment list, which was operative for the period April 1, 1959 to
March 31, 196()_
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) The assessment list for the yOl!r
commencing
from
April ), 1959, had to be settled by March 31, 1959, at the latest. This
list was liable to be amended under S. 67 even after March 31, 1959
on any of the grounds mentioned in . that Section.
Sec. 66 does not
say that the amendment of the assessment list should have been made
before March 31, 1959. The expression "subject to such amendment
as may thereafter be duly made" iin Sec. 66 would indicate that the
amendment of the list could be made even after March 31, 1959 as
Sec. 67 pro,ides for amendment of the list "at any time." [193BC]
It is not necessary that the assessment list should have been amended before March 31, 1959, in order that the Municipal Committee may
impose house tax on the building for the period from April 1, 1959
to March 31. 1960. An amendmant of the list under S. 67 wlls permissible on any of the grounds mentioned in the Section
even
after
March 31, 1959, as otherwise, the expression "at any time" would have
no meaning.
[193EF]
(ii) Further, the meaning of the expression "at
any
time"
will
depend upon the context in which the expression occurs. The expres·
sio.n "at any time" occurrin~ in S. 67 read with the word "thereafter"
in S. 66 can only lead to the conclu•ion that the amendment of the
list in question was permissible even after March 31, 1959. [19SA]
Central Bank of India Ltd. Amritsar v. The Hartford Fire Insurance
Co. Ltd. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1288; Exparte Norris in Re Sahler 17 Q.B.D.
728 refe{Ted to
·
·
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
ICIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1315 of
1972.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated
October 28, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 93 of 1967.
A
M. C. Chagla, S. K. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appelB
lant.
D. D. Chawla, H. K. Puri and S. K. Dhingra, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MATHEW, J. The appellant, Punjab National Bank Limited,
is the owner of a building bearing municipal No. 5, Parliament
Street, New Delhi.
After completion of its construction, it was
occupied on July 1, 1958. The building was not entered in the
assessment list which was to be operative during the period from
April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959. On September 4, 1959, the
New Delhi Municipal Committee, the respondent here, purporting
to act under s. 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, hereinafter
referred to as the Act, issued a notice to the appellant stating :
"This is to inform you that your building mentioned
at the back of this letter has been completed and is in
fact occupied from 1-7-1958 and ought to be assessed to
House tax by amending the list for 1959-60 under section 67 of the Municipal Act, 1911 and this Committee
has, vide resolution No. 30 dated 10-7-1959 proposed
to amend the list for the year 1959-60 by inserting the
said property on an annual value as given at the !1ack
of this letter.
"It is further proposed that the tax will take effect
from 1-4-1959.
''Notice is hereby given to you under section 67 of
the P. M. Act that the Committee will consider the
question of the amendment of the list and will hear
objections in Meeting Room on 20th day of November,
1959 at 10.00 A.M."
The appellant objected to the amendment of the list and levy
of the tax for the period in question but the objection was overruled, and the respondent passed a resolution confirming the proposed assessment on December 21, 1959. Thereafter the respondent sent a bill for the tax for the period. This was followed by
a notice of demand.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
PUN.JAB NATIONAL BANK v. N.D.M.C. (Mathew,/.)
191
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining
the respondent from enforcing the demand on the ground that the
respondent had no jurisdiction to include the building in the
assessment list. The trial Court decreed the suit.
The District
Judge, on appeal, agreed with the view of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The second appeal filed against his decision
was dismissed by a learned single judge of the High Court. An
appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge
which came up· before a Division Bench of the Court which referred the case to a larger Bench. The Bench, by a majority, set
aside the order of the single Judge and dismissed the suit. This
appeal, by certificate, is from this decision.
The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is
whether the respondent was entitled to include the building in the
assessment list which was operative for the period from April 1,
1959 to March 31, 1960, by amending it on November 20, 1959,
and impose house tax on the building for the year 1959-60.
Chapter V of the Act deals with taxation. Section 61 specifies
the taxes which might be imposed by a Municipal Committee and
one such tax is a tax payable by an owner of building and land.
Section 62 lays down the procedure for imposition of the taxes
mentioned in s. 61. Section 63 deals with the procedure for
assessment of tax on immovable property.
It provides that the
committee shall cause an assessment list of all buildings and lands
on which any tax is imposed to be prepared. Section 64 provides
that when the assessment list has been completed, the committee
shall give public notice thereof.
Section 65 provides rhat the
Committee shall, at the time of the publication of the assessment
list, ,give public notice of a time not less than one month therea~er,
when it will proceed to revise the valuation, and assessment, and
in all cases in which property is for the first time assessed, or the
assessment thereof is enhanced, it shall also give notice to the
owner or occupier of the property. Tue Section further requires
that all objections to the valuation shall be made before or at the
time fixed in the notice. Section 66 provides for the settlement
of the list and it states :
"66. Settlement of list (i) After the objections have
been enquired into and the persons malting them have
been allowed an opportunity of being heard either in
person or by authorized agent as they may think fit, and
the revision of the valuation and assessment has been
H
completed, the amendments made in the list shall be
authenticated by the signatures of not less than two
members of the Committee who shall at the same time
certify that no valid objections has been made to the
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 s.c.a.
valuation and assessment contained in the list, except in
the case in which amendments have been entered therein,
and subject to such amendments as may thereafter be
duly made, the tax so assessed shall be deemed to be
the tax for the year commencing on the first day of
January or first day of April next ensuing as the Committee may determine, or in the case of a tax then
imposed for the first time for the period between the
date on which the tax comes into force and such first
day of January or April, as the case may be.
"(2) The list when amended under this section
shall be deposited in the committee's office and shall
there be open during office hours to all owners or occupiers of property comprised therein or the authorized
agents of such persons, and a public notice that it is sp
open shall forthwith be published."
Section 67 which provides for further amendment of
assessment list states :
"(1) The Committee may at any time amend the
list by inserting the name of any person whose name
ought to have been or ought to be inserted, or by inserting any property which ought to have been or ought to
be inserted, or by altering the assessment on any property which has been erroneously valued or assessed
through fraud, accident or mistake, whether on the part
of the committee or of the assessee, or in the case of the
tax payable by the occupier b)I a change in the tenancy,
after giving notice to any person affected by the amendment, of a time, not less than one month from the date
of service, at which the amendment is to be made.
(2) Any person interested in any such amendment
may tender his objection to the committee in writing
before the time fixed in the notice, or orally or in writing at that time, and shall be allowed an opport_unity of
being heard in support of the same in person, or by
authorized agent, as he may think fit."
the
Section 68 confers a discretion on the committee to prepare
for the whole or any part of the municipality a new assessment
list every year.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The majority was of the view that the amendment of the
assessment list, though made on November 20, 1959, was operaHI
tive from April 1, 1959, and that the building was liable to be
taxed for the year which commenced from April 1, 1959, and
ended on March 31, 1960. The majority overruled the argument
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. N.D.M.c. (Mathew, I.)
193
of the appellant that the municipal committee had no jurisdiction
to amend the assessment list after the list was finalised on March
31, 1959.
It was contended for the appellant that when once the assessment list was finalized in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, the committee had no jurisdiction to amend it thereafter.
We think that the conclusion of the majority is correct. The
assessment list for the year commencing from April 1, 1959, had
to be settled by March 31, 1959 at the latest; this list was liable
to be amended under s. 67 even after March 31, 1959, on any
of the grounds mentioned in that section. Section 66 does not
say that the amendment of the assessment list should have been
made before March 31, 1959. The expression "subject to such
amendment as may thereafter be duly made" in s. 66 would indicate that the amendment of the list could be made even after
March 31, 1959, as s. 67 provides for amendment of the list "at
any ·time". And when the list was so amended, it shall be deemed
to have biien in force for the year which commenced from April 1,
1959, and ended on March 31, 1960, and the tax assessed therein
shall be deemed to be the tax for the financial year commencing.
from April 1, 1959. In other words, it was not necessary that
the assessment list should have been amended before March 31,
1959, in order that the municipal committee may impose house
tax on the building for the period from April I, 1959 to March
31, 1960. An amendment of the list under s. 67 was permissible
on any of the grounds mentioned in the section even after March
31, 1959, as otherwise, the expression "at any time" would have
no meaning.
The words "subject to such amendments as may
thereafter be duly made" in s. 66 postulate that a list finalized
before !st January or 1st April is liable to be amended thereafter
under s. 67. The building was certainly liable to be included in
the assessment list which was finalized on March 31. 1959, but
by some mistake it was not so included. The list was, therefore,
liable to be amended under s. 67. That was done. When· the list
was amended, the tax assessed for the building shall be deemed to
be the tax for it in the year which commenced from Apiil I, 1959,
and ·ended on March 31, 1960.
We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Chagla that the
expression "at any time" in s. 67 means that the amendment of
the assessment list could have been made only before March 31,
1959. We think that the purpose behind s. 67 was to enable the
Municipal Committee to amend the assessment list at any time on
any of the grounds mentioned therein. Counsel referred to the
decision in Ex-parte Norris. In Re Salder(') in support of his.
(l) 17 Q.B.D. 728.
14-L631Sup.CI/73
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) 3 S,C,ll.
contention that the words "at any time" in s. 67 must receive a
narrow construction as otherwise there will be no limit of time
for the amendment of the list. What happened in that case was
that a secured creditor, having stated in his proof the value at
which he assessed his security, the trustee gave him written notice
that "it was his intention" to redeem the security so valued, and
thereupon applied for and received from the Board of Trade the
amount required for such redemption.
Before any further step
was taken the creditor applied to amend his valuation and proof,
the security having increased in value. The Court held that nothing had occurred to prevent the amendment from being allowed.
In so holding the Court had to consider the argument based on
rule 13 of the 2nd Schedule to the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which
provided that a creditor may amend the valuation and proof "at
any time". Lord Esher.M. R., after stating that the Court has no
right to diminish the full force of the words "at any time" unless
from tllle Act itself or the Rules it is possible to find some necessary implication to limit the force of the words, observed :
"That they are to have some limitation cannot. I
think, be doubted; it cannot be that the right is to go
on for ever. One necessary implication, at all events, I
think is, that the right is at an end, if the trustee acting
upon the valuation put upon the security by the creditor,
has exercised the right given to him by the 12th rule, to
redeem the security "on payment to the creditor of the
assessed value". It is impossible to suppose that, after
the trustee has _paid the amount of the valuation, and
has thus on behalf of the general body of the creditors
become the purchaser of the security, the creditor can
undo all thai."
The respondent on the other hand submitted. that the words
"at any time" in s. 67 must be given the widest amplitude as the
purpose of s; 67 is to rectify any omission in the ljst occasioned
by the mistake, fraud, accident of the assessee or the Committee
as the case piay be, and reliance was placed on the decision in the
Central Bank of India Ltd., Amritsar v. The Hardford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd.(') where this Court had to construe the expression
"This insurance may be terminated at any time at the request of
the insured" occuqing in an insurance policy; it was held that the
words "at any time" can only mean "at any time the p;irty concerned likes".
We do not think that any universal rule can he laid down 81
to the meaning of the expression "at any time". It all depends
(I) A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 1288.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. N.D.M.C. (Mathew, I.)
195
upon the context in which the expression occurs. We think that
the expression "at any time" occurring in s. 67, when read in
conjunction with the word "thereafter" in s. 66 can only lead w
the conclusion that the amendment of the list in question was
permissible even after March 31, 1959.
The appellant contended that the building was not included in
the list which was operative for the period which commenced from
April 1, 1959 and ended on March 31, 1960. We have perused
the assessment list produced before us and we are satisfied that th~
amendment was made by inserting the ·building in the list which
was finalised on March 31, 1959, and which was operative for
the period which commenced from 1st April, 1959 and ended on
31st March, 1960.
We think that the majority was right in their con~lusion at~d
we discuss the appeal but, in the circumstances, make no order
as to costs.
s.c.
Appeal dismis.<ed.