In this writ petition, the petitioner sought interim relief restraining the respondent State from taking coercive measures regarding alleged unpaid entertainment duty and surcharges. The Court held that no further orders were needed as the subject matter did not contravene its previous order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 34 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2002
Royal Western India Turf
Club Ltd., .. Petitioner.
vs.
State of Maharashtra
& Ors. .. Respondents.
Ms. Sumidha Vedpathak i/by Maneksha & Sethana
for Petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Nair ’A’ Panel Counsel for Respondent/
State.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &
K.K. TATED, JJ.
DATE: 8TH AUGUST, 2008.
P.C.
. This notice of motion has been taken out
seeking an interim relief restraining the respondents
by themselves and/or through their officers, employees
and agents from taking any steps in contravention of
the order dated 5th December 2002 of this Court and/or
2
taking any coercive measures (including sealing of the
entrances to the Race Course of Petitioner No. 1
and/or computer rooms of the totalizators threat and/or
any structures thereon) for the alleged failure of
Petitioner No. 1 to pay interest on alleged delayed
payment of entertainment duty and surcharge on the
charges levied by Petitioner No. 1 on the use of
mobile phones at the Race Course of Petitioner No. 1.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner states that the petitioner has complied with
the order dated 23.1.2006 by depositing the amount on
25.1.2006.
3. The learned ’A’ Panel counsel says that he
would seek instructions from the concerned department
as to whether the petitioner has been regularly paying
the dues for which bills have been raised by the State
Government towards entertainment duty.
4. This Court on 5.12.2002 while admitting the
petition has heard the parties on grant of interim
relief and it has passed a detailed interim order in so
far it related to the resolution dated 27.12.2001 and
the demand raised by the respondent State of
Maharashtra in the matter. In so far as the other
notices issued by the respondent - State are concerned,
i.e., relating to payment of interest on the alleged
delayed payment of entertainment duty and surcharge on
3
the charges levied by Petitioner No. 1 on the use of
mobile phones at the Race Course of Petitioner No. 1,
that cannot be said to be in contravention of the order
dated 5.12.2002 as it is in keeping with the government
resolution which is under challenge. Therefore, we do
not find that any further orders are required to be
passed by this Court in the matter.
5. The notice of motion stands disposed of
accordingly.
(J.N. Patel, J.)
(K.K. Tated J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the notice of motion seeking interim relief restraining coercive measures over entertainment duty and surcharge issues requires further orders.
Whether the petitioner's complaint regarding delay in payment of entertainment duty and surcharge on mobile phone charges warrants judicial intervention.
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd.
State of Maharashtra
J.N. Patel
K.K. Tated
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court