LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-200

DASHMESH DENTAL COLLEGE Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

Decided On September 24, 2019
Dashmesh Dental College Appellant
V/S
ASHOK KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 11.3.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed against defendants No. 1 to 3 and suit of the plaintiff against defendant No. 4 was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, admittedly, was given contract of collection of octroi of Faridkot Municipal Limit by defendants No. 1 and 2 for the period 2003-04 that expired on 8.9.2004 but the time was extended till fresh auction takes place for the next financial year. The plea of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is that defendants No. 1 and 2 did not cooperate with the plaintiff in collection of octroi. Dashmesh Dental College, Talwandi Road, Faridkot committed evasion of payment of octroi as the institute brought Ventilator Make Viasys Vela Health Care T-Bird Series Model, 16186 by concealing the same in a transport vehicle so as to avoid payment of octroi. The aforesaid machine was allegedly supplied by defendant No. 4 being brought by Enstromedics India (Pvt. ) Limited, Chandigarh. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 claimed recovery of Rs. 3,83,985 i.e. Rs. 18,285/- as octroi and Rs. 3,65,700/- as composition fee on account of evasion of octroi by defendants No. 3 and 4. It is also averred that defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to act to gather the said amount by initiating action under Section 76 to 78 of the Municipal Act (in short "the Act").

(3.) The trial court partly decreed suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 18,285/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and liability to pay decretal amount was fastened against defendant No. 4. However, defendant No. 4 was given right to recover the said amount from defendant No. 3 in due course of law, if otherwise entitle to recover the same. At the same time, claim of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 with regard to recovery of composition fee of Rs. 3,65,700/- was rejected by the trial court.