Disposed

Mohd Kamruddin Mohd Khalik v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Jan 2020CA/84/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused to adjudicate the merits regarding tax recovery and condonation of delay without a deposit. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 3,24,720/- within two weeks. Failure to do so would result in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Notice to respondents subject to applicant depositing Rs. 3,24,720/- within two weeks; otherwise dismissal.

Mohd Kamruddin Mohd Khalik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 3-CA-84-2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7422 OF 2005

¶4

Mohd. Kamruddin s/o Khalik

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr P.P. Dawalkar, Advocate for Applicant Mr S.P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for Respondents-State

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 6^th JANUARY, 2020

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. By way of present application, the applicant prayed for condonation of delay of 240 days caused in flinn the application and further prayed for restoration of the writ petition. The writ petition was fled in the year 2005 challenninn notice of recovery of the taxes. While issuinn notice, by order dated 23^rd February, 2006, an interim protection was nranted to the petitioner subject to depositinn 50 % of the amount of penalty. Subsequently, the matter was listed before this Court on more than one occasions and thounh time was sounht for non-appearance were dismissed.

¶13

2 3-CA-84-2020

¶14

At this stane, it will not be out of place to state that thounh the applicant states the delay is of 240 days, on perusal of the documents, it reveals that the delay is of more than 500 days. It seems that subsequent to dismissal of the petition, a fresh notice was issued to the applicant on 29.04.2019 and the applicant had fled a fresh petition as per the statement in paranraph 15. The said writ petition No. 10791 of 2019 was disposed of by this Court nrantinn liberty to the applicant, but the copy of order is not placed on record.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the applicant made an attempt to submit before this Court that an excess amount is sounht for from the applicant anainst the recovery of tax and it is also the submission of the learned Counsel that there are only additional 76 connections installed by the applicant, whereas the amount claimed from the applicant is anainst some 300 and odd connections.

¶16

At this stane, it will not be possible for this Court to consider all these submissions of the learned Counsel of the applicant. As such, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents subject to the applicant deposits an amount of Rs. 3,24,720/- in this Court within a period of two weeks. Failure to deposit this amount within a period of two weeks, would lead to recallinn of our order of issuance of notice and such failure would then result in dismissal of the application without further

¶17

3 3-CA-84-2020

¶18

reference to this Court.

¶19

In case, the applicant deposits the amount as directed by this Court within a period of two weeks, notice be issued to the respondents makinn the same returnable on 20.01.2020.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the applicant orally submits before this Court that parallel action is initiated anainst the applicant for non-payment of the taxes in the form of issuance of warrant by the revenue authority. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that thounh the applicant had approached the revenue authority namely, Tahsildar, Aurannabad with a request to protect the applicant to deposit certain amount anainst the recovery and pass an order of some interim protection to the applicant, the revenue authority on the nround that the matter is pendinn before this Court is not payinn any heed to the request of the applicant. This is the only oral submission of the learned Counsel. Not a sinnle document to that efect is fled with an afdavit of the applicant alonn with the application. As the statement is made at the Bar, we may only direct the learned Assistant Government Pleader that if the applicant had approached the respondent No. 4 - the Additional Tahsildar, Aurannabad, the Additional Tahsildar, Aurannabad may pass an appropriate order followinn the provisions of law and the procedure established for consideration of such proceedinns before him.

¶21

4 3-CA-84-2020

¶22

The applicant requested the Additional Tahsildar, Aurannabad that part of the amount be accepted and the Additional Tahsildar may pass some orders nrantinn interim protection to the petitioner.

¶23

[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

mta

Mohd Kamruddin Mohd Khalik v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Kamruddin Mohd Khalik v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Sayyad Asad Sayyad Nizam Vs Vishwas Pandhre Superintendent of Police Dhule

Radhabai Vitthalrao Shinde through General Power of Attorney v a Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narayan Indarrao Chavan Vs Vikas Shankar Kharge and Others

Manohar Dattatraya Shringare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rikita Kashinath Ishi through Her Mother Pratibha Kashinath Ishi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikala Dodhu Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others