Disposed

Jindal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2018WP/7891/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging property tax demand. It held no purpose in keeping the petition pending as a statutory appeal was already filed. The court condoned the delay in renewing the bank guarantee used for the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in furnishing fresh bank guarantee; direction to accept renewed guarantee; petitioner to pursue statutory appeal.

Jindal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gram Panchayat and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

wp7891-16.doc

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7891 OF 2016

¶7

Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Jindal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.)

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

vs 1.Gram Panchayat, Through Sarpanch, Post Nevade, Taluka Panvel Dist. Raigad. (Deleted as per order dated 27/2/2018)

¶10

State of Maharashtra

¶11

Panvel Municipal Corporation.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

WITH

¶14

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2022 of 2017

¶15

Mr.Chirag Mody with Mr.Sridhar Chari i/b. DSK Legal, for the Petitioner.

¶16

Mr.N.R.Bubna, for Respondent No.1.

¶17

Mr.Rohit Sakhadeo i/b. J.G.Reddy, for Respondent No.3

¶18

CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL ACTING C.J & G.S.KULKARNI, J.

¶19

DATED: 19^th September,2018

¶20

P.C. :-

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

¶22

This petition was originally filed challenging the notice dated

¶23

17 June 2016 (Exhibit “P” to the petition) issued by respondent no.1-

¶24

Grampanchayat, Village Navade, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad,

wp7891-16.doc

Pvr

demanding an amount of Rs.26,56,800/- towards property taxes for the years 1999 till 2015, and a seizure notice dated 29 June 2016 (Exhibit “R” to the petition) issued to the petitioner for failure in payment of the outstanding property taxes. Respondent no.1-Grampanchayat was merged into respondent no.3. Panvel Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') which thereafter issued notice dated 7 February 2018 to the petitioner demanding property tax of Rs.31,66,216/-. The petitioner amended the writ petition and impleaded the Corporation as respondent no.3, as permitted by an order dated 27 February 2018 passed in Civil Application no.458 of 2018. A challenge to the said notice dated 7 February 2018 has been incorporated in the writ petition.

¶29

This writ petition was heard from time time. By an order dated 11 July 2016, the Court granted an ad-interim stay to the impugned notices (at Exhibit “P” and Exhibit “R”) and all further action/steps to be taken by respondent no.1, on the petitioner's furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.26 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial-I) within a period of one week. The petitioner accordingly submitted the bank guarantee on 14 July 2016.

¶30

The petitioner has now filed Civil Application No.2022 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay of 244 days (about eight months) in the petitioner renewing/furnishing, a fresh bank guarantee, in substitution of

wp7891-16.doc

Pvr

the bank guarantee dated 14 July 2016 submitted in pursuance of order dated 11 July 2016, and for direction that the Office be directed to accept the fresh bank guarantee dated 14 March 2018 as being furnished by the petitioner.

¶35

The dispute pertains to the demand of property taxes, for which now a recent bill dated 7 February 2018 (Exhibit 'W' to the petition) is raised by the Corporation. The petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal disputing the said bill issued by the Corporation raising the property taxes, which is pending adjudication.

¶36

In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petition pending, as the petitioner has already availed of a statutory remedy by filing an appeal challenging the levy of the property taxes.

¶37

We accordingly disposed of the petition by the following

¶38

order:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(I) The petitioner shall pursue its statutory appeal, disputing the impugned notices/demand of the property taxes. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

¶41

(II) The delay in furnishing the bank guarantee stands condoned

wp7891-16.doc

Pvr

and the petitioner is permitted to renew the bank guarantee.

¶46

(III) Office is directed to accept the renewed bank guarantee dated 14 March 2018, being submitted by the petitioner.

¶47

(IV) The petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee alive/valid, till the disposal of the appeal and for a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶48

(V) The petitioner may seek withdrawal of the bank guarantee, by an appropriate application, after the statutory appeal is decided, such application would be considered on its own merits.

¶49

(VI) The petition and civil application No.2022 of 2018 are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶50

(G.S.KULKARNI, J.)

¶51

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Jindal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jindal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Dilip Kashid Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Revenu Dept and Forest Dept. and Anr.

Sau. Shobha Channappa Atudkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Venubai Dattatraya Patil Vs the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bhiwandi Nizampur through the Municipal Commissioner

Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gram Panchayat through Sarpanch and Ors.

Badshah Nabi Shaikh Vs the Commissioner, Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation , Bhiwandi and Ors.

M/S. Pawan Estates Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.