Disposed

Suryadarshan Co-Op Hsg. Soc.Lt. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2005WP/2060/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Prothonotary to appoint a Chartered Accountant from the Court's panel to work out the amount due and late fees based on lease agreements between the petitioners and the respondents. The parties must submit materials within 45 days. Payment is conditioned on the resulting calculation, and the issue of amount reduction is left as a separate consideration.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of a Chartered Accountant to work out dues within 45 days; payment of amount determined to be made within four weeks; rule made absolute.

Suryadarshan Co-Op Hsg. Soc.Lt. and Ors. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2060 of 2004

¶4

Suryadarshan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd...............................Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors.....Respondents

¶7

Mr. D.J. Khambatta with Mr. R.I. Chagla i/b. Mohammedbhai & Co., for the Petitioner Mr. Niranjan Pandit, AGP for Respondents

¶8

CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE : 25th April,2005

¶9

. Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶10

The limited issue which arises in this petition is the

¶11

demand	made	by	the	resp	ondent	No.2	on	the	petitioners.		It is
the case	of	the	petitio	ners	that	on	account	of	the de	mand	made
Respondent	No.	2	has	refus	ed to	sign	Anne	xure	II which	is	to
recommend	n	ames	of	the	eligib	le	persons	which	will	be	finally
approved	by	the	S.R.	A.	Acc	ording	to	the	petitioners	in	terms

¶12

of the calculations which they have worked out the 3

¶13

petitioners have to pay totally a sum of Rs.4,49,549/-.

¶14

In so far as the Respondent No.2 is concerned, their

¶15

learned		Counsel	poi	nts out	that	there	are	lease	ag	reements.
In	terms	of	lease	Agreements	each	occupier	had	to	pay	an
instalment		per	month.	On	failure	to	pay	the	instalment	there
was	a	late	fee.	It is	submitted	that	late	fee	is	continues
and	char	geable	every	month	until	the	insta	lment	is	paid.

¶16

Based upon that as per their calculation the total amount due

¶17

and payable is Rs.44,42,592/-.

¶18

On behalf of the petitioners it is pointed out that

¶19

the	respondent	No.2	themse	lves	had	reduced	the	said	amount	to
Rs.29,01,503/-	in	terms	of	the	demand	made	on	20th	Dec	ember,
2002.	Learned	Counse	l for	Resp	ondent	No.2	points	out	that	the
subsequent	demand		was	based	upon	a res	olution	of	resp	ondent
No.2	which	the	petitioners	have	not	availed	of	and	in	these

¶20

circumstances the amount payable is which is reflected in the

¶21

earlier demand made on 19th July, 2004.

¶22

5.			Consider	ing the c	ontroversy the	Prothonotary	& Seni	or
Master		is	direct	ed	to appoint	a	Charter	ed	Ac	countant		from	the
Panel	maint	ained	by	this	Court to	work	out		the	amount	s	due	and
payable	i	n	terms	of	the	lease	a	gree	ments	bet	wee	n	the
petitioners		and	th	e	Respondent	No.2.	The		sa	id	am	ount	as
worked		out	by	the	Chartered	Accountant	wil	l	be	paid		by	the
petitioners		to	re	spondent	No.2	within	four		weeks	of		the	order
of	the		Charter	ed	Accountant	whereu	pon	the		respond	ent		NO.2
shall		give	the	nece	ssary perm	ission	in	Ann	exure	II		as	applied
for	by	the	peti	tioners.	That	would	be	su	bject	to	the		rights
of	the	par	ties	if	they are	aggrieved	by	the		order		of	the
Chartered		Accou	ntant.		It will	be	open		to	th	e		Chartered
Accountan	t		while	fixin	g the	amount	incl	udin	g	charging		of	late

¶23

fees to consider the terms of the lease agreement and work out

¶24

the amount due based on his interpretation.

¶25

In so far as the reduction in the amount is concerned, it will be open to the petitioners to raise the issue on the respondent No.2 and it is for the respondent No.2 to consider

¶26

the same and dispose it of according to law.

¶27

The Chartered Accountant on his appointment to complete the entire exercise within a period of 45 days. It

¶28

will be open to both the parties

before

the

appear

Chartered Accountant and place their material for

¶34

consdieration whilst computing the amount.

¶35

Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶36

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

¶37

(S.P. KUKDAY, J.)

Suryadarshan Co-Op Hsg. Soc.Lt. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryadarshan Co-Op Hsg. Soc.Lt. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji S. Jamdade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatraya Tatyaba Dhanavade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raosaheb Jayaram Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ms. Palak D. Shah D/O. D.H. Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shikha Dinesh Sood Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kishor D.Keni Vs Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Development Uthority