Disposed

Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2010NMW/24/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This notice of motion sought review of an order disposing a writ petition initially. The High Court granted an order allowing the petitioners to proceed with their pending appeal before the appellate court within three months, clarifying that this decision is not a precedent for other cases.

What did the court decide?

Appellate court to hear appeal expeditiously within three months based on 50% deposit.

Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs Brihanmumbai… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTON NO. 24 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2348 OF 2009

¶5

Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

V/s .

¶8

Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, i/by M/s. YKS Legal for the Petitioners

¶11

Ms. V.S. Gharpure for the Respondent/MCGM.

¶12

CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND B.R. GAVAI, JJ . DATE: APRIL 15, 2010 (In Chamber at 2.40 p.m.)

¶13

P.C .:-

¶14

After the petition came to be disposed of by this Court, the petitioners have taken out this Notice of Motion, by which they seek an order from this Court to review this Court’s order of 12^th January, 2010, disposing of the petition mainly on the ground that this Court, in identical matters, by applying the principle on which interim orders came to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr. against Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai & Ors .,

¶15

¶16

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the parties to deposit 50% of the difference between the assessment and the revised enhanced assessment; has granted relief as sought, and they submit that the same benefit may be extended to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have already deposited 50% of the revised enhanced assessment with the appellate Court, where their appeal is pending.

¶17

It is further the contention of the petitioners that they are in occupation of a portion of the premises under assessment by way of an Extension Counter; and proportionately, their liability to pay Municipal Taxes is far less than what they have deposited. It is a fact that the licensor / lessor of the petitioners has not disputed the revised assessment. In the given facts and circumstances, 50% deposit made by the petitioners before the appellate Court of the revised assessment is sufficient compliance of Section 217(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

¶18

The appellate Court shall, therefore, proceed to hear the appeal in accordance with law, and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months.

¶19

¶20

We make it clear that this will not be considered as a

¶21

precedent in any other case.

¶22