Disposed

Enpar Buildcon LLP and Another v. the Assistant Assessor and Collector and 2 Others

Bombay HC21 Jul 2016WP/1384/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court directed the Mumbai Corporation to conduct a personal hearing on the petitioners' grievance regarding the lack of procedure followed before issuing demand notices. The warrant of attachment was directed to remain intact till the complaint is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to hear the petitioners' complaint within two weeks and not disturb the warrant of attachment till disposal.

Enpar Buildcon LLP and Another Vs the Assistant… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2016)

7.wp-1384.15.doc

Sbw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1384 OF 2015

¶7

Enpar Buildcon LLP & Anr. Versus The Assistant Assessor & Collector Assessment & Collection Department, Mumbai & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w Mahek Kamdar i/b. Kanga & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. S. S. Pakale a/w H. C. Pimpale for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 21^st JULY, 2016

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

At the request of the counsel, the petition itself is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

¶16

This Petition challenges:

¶17

(a) the special notice dated 12^th December, 2014 issued under Section 162(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (the Act);

¶18

(b) the consequent demand notices dated 20^th March, 2015and 25^th March, 2015; and

7.wp-1384.15.doc

Section 203 of the Act.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioners is that its objections/complaint dated 22^nd December, 2014 to the special notice dated 12^th December, 2014 has not been disposed of by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, viz. Granting of a personal hearing. In the above view, it is submitted that the demand notices as well as the warrant of attachment are unsustainable in law and be set aside.

¶24

Mr. Pakale, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation states that the complaint as filed by the petitioners is bereft of any particulars. In that view, the complaint dated 22^nd December, 2014 is not a complaint in substance as it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 163 of the Act which mandates specifying the grounds of complaint. In the above view there was no obligation upon the Corporation to hear the petitioners as there is no complaint filed with the Corporation.

¶25

Prima facie we find merit in the submission made by Mr. Pakale. However, we notice that on 10^th April, 2015 when ad-interim relief was granted to the petitioners, the respondent-Corporation had admitted that the complaint has been filed by the petitioners and has not been heard in accordance with the provisions of Section 165 of the Act. The complaint dated 22^nd December, 2014 as filed by the petitioners was considered by the Corporation as a complaint worthy of hearing in terms of Section 165

¶26

3 7.wp-1384.15.doc

¶27

of the Act. It is in view of the admitted position as recorded in the order dated 10^th April, 2015 that we direct the Corporation to hear the petitioners complaint dated 22^nd December, 2014. In the above view, the petitioners would dispose of the complaint dated 22^nd December, 2014 within a period of two weeks from today after granting a personal hearing. Further it is made clear that the warrant of attachment dated 30^th March, 2015 is not disturbed till the disposal of the petitioners complaint.

¶28

By the consent of the Advocates, the first hearing of the complaint is fixed on 27^th July, 2016 at 11.00 a.m. before the Assessor and Collector, G/South West Ward, 4^th Floor, Room No.22, N. M. Joshi Marg, Elphistone Road, Mumbai-400 013.

¶29

Petition is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.

¶30

wadhwa

Enpar Buildcon LLP and Another v. the Assistant Assessor and Collector and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Enpar Buildcon LLP and Another v. the Assistant Assessor and Collector and 2 Others

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

Rpp Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Vulcan Lavae Ltd. Vs the Commisioner of Incometax

M/S. Valcan Laval Ltd. Vs the C.I.T.Bombay.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 4 Mumbai Vs Income Tax Setlement Commission (Itsc) Additional Bench and 3 Others

Ravin Cables Limited Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Hall and Anderson Limited and Anr. Vs the Assistant Assessor and Collector and 2 Ors.