Disposed

The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Mar 2017WP/3339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench disposed of the writ petition after the Respondent Corporation assured the court that it would hear the Petitioner's pending representation and refrain from coercive proceedings until such representation was decided.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed off in the terms that the Corporation will hear the representation and not take coercive steps pending its disposal.

The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 902-wp-3339-2017.doc

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3339 OF 2017

¶5

The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Navi Mumbai Municipal ..Respondents Corporation and Ors.

¶6

..Respondents

¶7

Mr.G.V. Murti a/w. Mr.Mohan Rao i/b. M/s. MSR & Associates for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Sandeep Marne for the Respondent-Corporation.

¶9

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

¶10

DATE : 23^rd MARCH, 2017

¶11

P. C.

¶12

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a final notice dated 18^th March, 2017 issued by respondent no.1 – Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (the Act).

¶13

The impugned final notice calls upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding property tax within two days failing which further proceeding for attachment and sale of the defaulting property would be initiated by the Corporation.

¶14

2 902-wp-3339-2017.doc

¶15

The grievance of Mr. Murti is that the impugned notice dated 18^th March, 2017 has been issued without having disposed of the petitioners representation dated 20^th January, 2017. Mr. Murti, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the special notice dated 11^th April, 2015 was objected to by the petitioners by communication dated 23^rd April, 2015. The same has not yet been disposed of. Inspite of the above fact the Corporation issued further a special notice dated 17^th October, 2015 and consequent thereto a final notice dated 9^th January, 2017 and 18^th March, 2017. All that the petitioner seeks is his representation dated 20^th January, 2017 be considered by the Corporation and be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶16

Mr. Marne, learned Counsel for the Corporation very fairly states that the Corporation will hear the petitioners and thereafter pass an Order on the representation dated 20^th January, 2017. Further, the Corporation till the disposal of the petitioners representation dated 20^th January, 2017 will not take any coercive proceedings.

¶17

In the above terms the petition is disposed off.

The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

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

M/S Sunil Hi Tech Engineers Ltd. through Authorized Signatory and Ors. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-14 and Ors.

M/S Sunil Hitech (India) Infra Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Signatory and Anr. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-13 and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Pune Vs Ajitkumar Popatlal Shah

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.