Dismissed

Bhalchandra Dattaram Korgaonkar v. Helik Advisory Limited

Bombay HC5 Jan 2018WP/1781/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an order from the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay the balance service tax and expenses for expert testimony and voice/handwriting analysis. The petitioner in person argued that since the agency was hired pursuant to a court witness summons, liability should not lie with him. The bench observed that while the petitioner had deposited substantial amounts, t

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the Family Court to apply for correction of the amount.

Bhalchandra Dattaram Korgaonkar Vs Helik… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 909.1781.17 wp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1781 OF 2017

¶3

Bhalchandra Dattaram Korgaonkar

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Helik Advisory Limited

¶7

....Respondent

¶8

Mr. Bhalchandra D. Korgaonkar petitioner-in-person.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 5, 2018.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The petitioner appears in person who was party before the Court below in the capacity of husband. Out of matrimonial discord, it is informed by the petitioner at Bar that a Decree for divorce is already passed.

¶13

2 In the proceedings before the Family Court, at the behest of the petitioner, services of private agency were summoned in the matter of hand writing and voice sample.

¶14

3 Towards the charges levied by such agency the petitioner made substantial payment, however, by the order impugned, the petitioner is directed by the Family Court, Mumbai to pay balance amount of Rs. 27,441/-

¶15

ism

¶16

2 909.1781.17 wp

¶17

towards the service Tax and other expenses.

¶18

4 The petitioner-party in person submits that though the cause for summoning the services was at the behest of the petitioner, however, the services of the agency were hired pursuant to the order of the Court, witness summons by the Court was issued and as such he cannot be made liable to pay service charges, tax and other liability. He would try to draw support from the Judgment of this Court in writ petition no. 1927 of 2011 decided on 15/12/2014 so as to claim that in law he is not duty bound to pay or legally such liability cannot be saddled on him.

¶19

5 After the proceedings in which the order impugned dated March 8, 2016 was passed, it is required to be appreciated that it is by adjudicating the prayer of the petitioner for ascertaining the hand writing and voice sample, the services of the private agency were summoned. The petitioner has made a categorical statement that he has already paid the substantial charges towards the amount charged by such agency for deciding the judicial proceedings. That being so, it is a case of the petitioner that he has already acted on the order passed by the court below by depositing substantial amount towards the charges levied by such agency in the matter of recording of evidence in a judicial proceedings.

¶20

6 In such eventuality as the claim of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the amount as ordered by the impugned order cannot be faulted with.

¶21

ism

¶22

3 909.1781.17 wp

¶23

7 The petitioner in my opinion does not deserve consideration in extra ordinary jurisdiction as such petition fails, dismissed.

¶24

8 The petitioner at this stage, seeks liberty to approach the Family Court so as to apply for correcting the amount.

¶25

9 Liberty in accordance with law.

¶26

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶27

ism

Bhalchandra Dattaram Korgaonkar v. Helik Advisory Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhalchandra Dattaram Korgaonkar v. Helik Advisory Limited

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

Neel Sarovar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Sneh Sarovar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Union of India through Chief Engineer Vs M/S. Mohata Construction Co.

Mr. Aditya Mitthuram Prajapati Vs Mrs. Poonam Aditya Prajapati

Ramaben Laljibhai Kapadia (Now Decd) Vs Killick Nixon Ltd. and Anr.

Rajendra Harishchandra Chavan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Harishchandra Chavan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.