The High Court held that the writ petition need not be entertained as the respondents assured no coercive action while the Petitioners perceive a stay application scheduled for hearing before the third Respondent within a specific timeframe.
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 of 2 WP(L).3495.2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3495 OF 2015
Mphasis Limited and another Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Tapan Deshpande, Mr.Jay Sanklecha i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for Petitioners. Mr.N.P.Pandit, AGP, for State. Mr.S.Kale, Law Officer, CCRA, Pune, present.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 17 December 2015
PC :
When this petition was called out, the learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the impugned demand notice is a coercive action which frustrates the right of appeal vested in the Petitioners under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. We called upon learned AGP Mr.Pandit to take instructions.
2 of 2 WP(L).3495.2015
stay made in the said appeal and that is scheduled for hearing on 5 January 2016.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
MST
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging a demand notice should be entertained when an appeal and stay application are pending before the revenue authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mphasis Limited
State of Maharashtra
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
B.P.COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
