Allowed

Canara Bank v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2006WP/1365/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Canara Bank challenged an order rejecting its complaint for default under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The High Court held that the petitioner acted in bonafides and there was no negligence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to register and dispose of the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 1st July, 2005 was quashed and set aside; respondents directed to register and dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner.

Canara Bank Vs the Municipal Corpn. of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.1365 OF 2006

¶4

 Canara Bank .. Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Municipal Corporation of
 Greater Mumbai & Others .. Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.R.M. Nakhwa with Mr.T.C. Deshpande i/b. Mr.V.B.
 Dhawan for the petitioner.

¶8

 Ms.A.R. Joshi for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

¶10

DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2006.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order
 dated 1st July, 2005 passed by the Assistant Assessor &
 Collector, H-West Ward under Section 164 of the Bombay
 Municipal Corporation Act, rejecting the complaint filed
 by the petitioner.

¶13

 2. Pursuant to the special notice dated 29th
 March, 2005 issued under Section 162(2) of the Bombay
 Municipal Corporation Act (‘the Municipal Act’ for
 short), it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner
 to file complaint under Section 163 of the Municipal Act
 within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. As
 the complaint was received after 15 days of the service
 of the special notice, by the impugned order dated 1st

¶14

¶15

 July, 2005, the Assistant Assessor & Collector has
 rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶16

 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the

¶17

 special notice was served upon the landlord and by the
 time the said notice was forwarded to the petitioner and
 the complaint was filed, there was delay of 12 days. In
 these circumstances, it is submitted that the delay
 ought to be condoned.

¶18

 4. Ms.A.R. Joshi appearing on behalf of the
 respondents leaves it to the Court.

¶19

 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances set

¶20

 out in the petition in my opinion, there is no

¶21

 negligence or inaction or want of bonafides on the part
 of the petitioner and hence the delay ought to be
 condoned. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1st
 July, 2005 being (Exhibit "D-1" to the petition) is
 quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to
 register the complaint filed by the petitioner and
 dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶22

 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order

¶23

 with no order as to costs.

¶24

 7. The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

¶26

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Canara Bank v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelaben P. Shah Vs N T C (S M) Ltd. and Ors.

Ramubhai J. Patel and 2 Ors. Vs National Textile Corpn. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

k.r.shirsat and Anr. Vs ntc (s m) Ltd. and 8 Ors.

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Suresh Lachhmandas Raheja and 4 Ors.

Gunwant Purushottam Waghela Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Vinod Chandrakant Kharat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra