Allowed

M/S. Jayantilal Investment v. the Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Bombay HC31 Jan 2012WP/300/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court stayed an auction notice of a society's property when a member was alleged to be the defaulter. The court directed the Corporation to determine respective dues and hold parties within 15 days to raise bills, setting aside the impugned notice in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Impugned auction notice set aside; Corporation directed to hear parties and determine respective dues within 15 days by passing reasoned order.

M/S. Jayantilal Investment Vs the Bombay Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

oswp-300-12

pdp

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2012

¶6

M/s. Jayantilal Investments .. Petitioners Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Snehal Shah a/w Mr. Y. R. Shah for petitioners. Mrs. Vidya Gharpure for BMC. Mr. Suraj Iyer i/by Ganesh & Co. for respondent no.3. Mr. Jitendra Shukla for respondent no.4.

¶8

CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & R. D. DHANUKA, JJ.

¶9

JANUARY 31, 2012.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶12

The petitioner-society has approached this court for a direction that the auction in respect of the society’s property be stayed since according to the petitioner the defaulter is one of the members of the society i.e. respondent no.4. It appears that the respondent no.4 purchased

¶13

¶14

oswp-300-12

¶15

the property in the society in the year 1996 and is undisputedly a member since then. On record there is a letter of the Corporation dated 20/7/2011 from which it appears that the respondent no.4 is liable for the dues in respect of Gala Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 and that the outstanding dues of the society largely comprise the amount not paid by the respondent no.4. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the society cannot be held responsible solely for the failure of the one member to pay the dues particularly when the other members have been paying the dues regularly. It appears that the Corporation has considered the respondent no.4 liable for outstanding dues after the year 2000 vide letter dated 20/7/2011. On overall consideration of the matter, it appears that the amount, which is due to the Corporation i.e. a sum of Rs.63,81,416/- for the period from 1/10/1995 to 31/3/2010 comprises the amount of dues of the respondent no.4 along with interest and penalty thereon. However, we are not inclined to adjudicate the specific liability of either the respondent no.4 or the society at this stage.

¶16

In the circumstances, we direct that the respondentCorporation shall hear the petitioner, respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 and determine their respective dues with reference to the specific period and raise a bill on the person concerned, having regard to the provisions of Sections 209 and 209A and thereafter proceed to take such action for recovery as may be considered appropriate. The Corporation shall hear the parties within a period of fifteen days from the date the parties appeared before it. The parties are directed to appear before the Corporation on 6/2/2012 and Corporation shall decide the said issue within a period of

¶17

¶18

oswp-300-12

¶19

fifteen days thereafter by passing a reasoned order. In the meanwhile, the impugned auction notice is set aside. The Corporation is at liberty to issue fresh notice as may be advised in accordance with law.

¶20

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶21

(R. D. DHANUKA,J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)

M/S. Jayantilal Investment v. the Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Jayantilal Investment v. the Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 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

Prashant Sadashiv Chowta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Guju Ads Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Disribution Co. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

M/S. Mohamedi Mechanic Works Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 3 Ors.

Shree Vardhaman Stanakvasi Jain Shravak Sangh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 8 Ors. and Shree T. Atmal Kamal L. G. Trust-- Appli

Raj Dadarkar and Associates, Vs Muncipal Coporation of Greater Mumbai

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan through Its Sanjay Khemka and Another Vs the State Transport Authority and 3 Ors.