Disposed

Reliance Communication Ltd. and Ors. v. Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2017CAW/727/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application seeking extension of time to file 80 appeals against municipal assessment bills. The court directed the petitioners to file appeals along with condonation applications by the stipulated deadline, noting the Appellate Authority would sympathically consider the delay given the dismissed writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioners to file 80 appeals with applications for condonation of delay on or before 29th March 2017.

Reliance Communication Ltd. and Ors. Vs Thane Municipal… — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

727-17-caw=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 727 OF 2017 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1636 OF 2017

¶5

Reliance Communication Ltd. & Ors. .. Applicants / Petitioners

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. . Respondents

¶8

Mr. D.J. Kakalia i/b Mulla & Mulla & C.B.&C for the applicant Mr. R.S. Apte aw/ Mr. N.R. Bubna for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

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

¶10

DATED : 24^th MARCH, 2017.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Civil Application has been taken out by the applicants / petitioners to extend the time for filing the appeals under Section 406 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act in respect of orders of the assessment relating to 80 mobile towers.

¶13

The petitioners seek extension in view of the following facts :-

¶14

(a) The orders of the assessment / bills dated 2^nd February, 2017 against which appeals are being preferred were challenged in this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.1636 of 2017 on 6^th February, 2017.

¶15

(b) On 23^rd February, 2017, the petition was dismissed on the ground

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

727-17-caw=.doc

that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy provided under Section 406 of the Act.

¶20

¶21

(d) Therefore, the petitioners were required to file its appeals from the 80 assessment orders / bills dated 2^nd February, 2017 on or before 8^th March, 2017. This after excluding the time spent in prosecuting the Writ Petition in this Court.

¶22

Mr. Kakalia, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants states that they are in the process of filing the 80 appeals and the same would be filed on or before 29^th March, 2017. Since large number of appeals are to be filed by the applicants, there was a delay in filing the appeals before the Appellate Authority. This inspite of its best efforts. Therefore, he seeks extension of time to file the 80 appeals before the Appellate Authority till 29^th March, 2017.

¶23

Mr. Apte, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent objects to extension of time being granted. This, as the order dated 23^rd February, 2017 of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No.1636 of 2017 did not grant any time to file appeals before the Appellate

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

727-17-caw=.doc

Authority.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, if the petitioners file its appeals along with its applications for condonation of delay in filing all the 80 appeals with the Appellate Authority on or before 29^th March, 2017, then the Appellate Authority would consider sympathetically the applications for condonation of delay, if any, filed by the applicants along with their appeals on or before 29^th March, 2017.

¶29

Thus, the Civil Application is disposed of in above terms. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the Appellate Authority.

¶30

(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

Uday S. Jagtap

Reliance Communication Ltd. and Ors. v. Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Communication Ltd. and Ors. v. Thane 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ksb Pumps Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Mahabal Auto Ancillaries Pvt.Ltd

Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Mumbai Vs Indian Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Large Tax Prayer Unit) Vs M/S Industrial Development Bank on India Limited

The Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs Raman Publication Pvt.Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax III Pune Vs M/S. Sanand Properties Pvt. Ltd.