Allowed

Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Trustee and Ors. v. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2014WP/2061/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the tax exemption order of 08.01.1998 remained valid and directed the Municipal Corporation to serve revised bills and refrain from action on notices issued in 2011. The petition was disposed of on this basis.

What did the court decide?

Direction to serve revised bills within two months and restraint from acting on notices dated 08.12.2011 and 22.12.2011.

Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Trustee and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

WP-2061-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2061 OF 2012

¶5

Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Petitioner vs. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. S. V. Palsuledesai for Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Rao i/b. Ms. Pratibha Borade for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 3RD FEBRUARY 2014

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶10

2] The order dated 08.01.1998 passed by the 1^st Respondent Municipal Corporation records that an exemption has been grated to the Petitioner from payment of certain taxes in exercise of the power clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 132 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short “the said Act”). Our attention is invited to the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2003 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 1227 of 1996 filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents. The first issue was framed regarding the exemption granted to the Petitioner from payment of

1/3

skc

WP-2061-12

property taxes. The said issue has been answered in favour of the Petitioner by the Civil Court by holding that clause (b) of sub Section (1) of Section 132 of the said Act will be applicable.

¶15

3] Our attention is invited to the various bills issued by the 1^st Respondent Municipal Corporation from the year 2011 onwards. The exemption granted on 08.01.1998 has not been revoked by the 1^st Respondent Corporation.

¶16

4] It is true that the exemption is not applicable to all categories of taxes which are demanded by the bills, which are annexed to the Petition. The challenge is to the action of the Respondents of threatening the attachment of the property of the Petitioner on the ground that the bills are not being paid.

¶17

5] So long as the order of exemption dated 08.01.1998 is not revoked or modified, the exemption in relation to the taxes set out in the said order continues to remain in force. This controversy can be resolved by directing the 1^st Respondent to serve the revised bills to the Petitioner in accordance with the order of exemption dated 08.01.1998. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order :-

2/3

skc

WP-2061-12

I. We direct the 1^st Respondent to serve the revised bills on the Petitioner within a period of two months from today. The revised bills shall be in terms of the order of exemption dated 08.01.1998;

¶22

II. In view of the above direction, we direct that the 1^st Respondent shall not take any action on the basis of notices dated 08.12.2011 and 22.12.2011;

¶23

III. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the revised bills served by the 1^st Respondent, the Petitioner will have to adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the bills;

¶24

IV. The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶25

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶26

Chandka

¶27

3/3

Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Trustee and Ors. v. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Trustee and Ors. v. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation 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

Mr. Amol Sambhaji Thorat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forests Dept and Ors.

Ramchandra Mahalappa Kambale Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Ors.

Shri. Aand Bapu Phadtare and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Hemant Baliram Malekar Vs Mrs. Shubhangi Hemant Malekar

Mr. Shantilal Lalchand Jain and Ors. Vs Mr. Hanif Haji Adam Peer Mohammed Lulaniya and Ors.

Shivaji Ganpatrao Shitole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.