Kunal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2011WP/2289/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram directed the Corporation to grant a hearing to the petitioner on a complaint against a rateable value notice, despite the complaint being filed slightly beyond the statutory fifteen-day limit, due to identified lapses in notice delivery, subject to the petitioner attending on a specific date.

What did the court decide?

Directed Corporation to give a hearing on the complaint if petitioner attends on 18th January 2011.

Kunal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

WP2289-10

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2289 OF 2010

¶5

Kunal Corporation Pvt Ltd

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.R.M.Nakhawa with Mrs.Prachi Raj Mhatre i/by M.S.Bodhanwalla & Co for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.S.S.Pakale a/w Ms.T.H.Puranik for B.M.C.

¶12

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12^th January 2011.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

. Heard parties. Rule. By consent taken up for hearing forthwith.

¶15

2 This writ petition is directed against the respondent No.1 for its failure to take cognizance of the complaint against the rateable value in respect of the property in question which was made on 20th April 2010. The reason for the same has been set out

¶16

in the letter, a copy of which is at page 74 of the petition.

¶17

3 The Corporation communicated to the petitioner that the complaint is received

¶18

on 20th April 2010 whereas the intimation as regards the rateable value was served on 29th March 2010. Thus, the complaint was received beyond the period of fifteen days

WP2289-10

stipulated by law.

4 My attention was invited by Mr.Nakhwa to several orders of this Court wherein a direction was issued to the Corporation to give a hearing on the complaint though belatedly made to the assessee like the petitioner.

¶23

5 Mr. Pakale on the other hand submits that the orders of the single Judges are contrary to the Division Bench judgment in Appeal No. 84 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.1910 of 2007 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors Vs. Cosmos Foundation & Ors) dated 21st July 2010 wherein the Division Bench has taken a view that the period stipulated in law cannot be extended. Therefore, in his submission the orders of the learned single Judges are no longer good law.

¶24

6 In my view, in the peculiar facts of this case the larger controversy need not be gone into. The Corporation proceeds on the basis that the complaint should have been filed within a period of fifteen days from 29th March 2010 whereas the petitioner states that the complaint was filed on 20th April 2010 which is not an unreasonable or unexplained delay. The delay may be at the most of few days.

¶25

7 In the peculiar facts of this case when there is a controversy as to whether the pasting of the notice is service of the same or whether the petitioner was handicapped

¶26

WP2289-10

¶27

¶28

because the notice was pasted and ultimately on account of the lapses of security staff the same was received in their office belatedly, interest of justice would be served if

¶29

the Corporation is directed to give a hearing to the petitioner on the complaint made against the notice dated 29th March 2010 and pass such orders as are permissible thereon. However, the petitioner will be entitled to a hearing only if it remains present before the concerned Investigating Officer on 18th January 2011. Petition is disposed off in above terms. No costs.

¶30

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Kunal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Shanti Projects and Anr. Vs Vitthal Rakhumai Shrikrishna Co. and 77 Ors.

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs Mohammed Hanif Sayed and Anr.

Hiralal Liladhar Vs Shamsunder Z. Lahoti

Ramchndra G. Joshi Vs Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Hemchandra Jagannath Parab

Fashion First Vs Harshil Textiles and Anr.