Dismissed

Smt. Sarala Agrawal v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC15 Oct 2012CRP/5081/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges an order staying recovery of 80% of disputed property tax with a condition to deposit 20%. The Court held that the lower court acted judiciously under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC and no interference is warranted under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners shall not be entitled to any refund or adjustment of the deposited amount until they succeed in the appeal.

Smt. Sarala Agrawal Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5081 of 2012

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Smt. Sarala Agarwal and another.

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.IX, Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. SHYAM S. AGARWAL

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent: --NONE APPEARED--

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Petitioners, who filed an appeal under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act against the enhanced property tax demanded from them, had sought stay of recovery of disputed tax vide I.A.No.1240 of 2012 in M.A.No.623 of 2012. The lower appellate Court entertained the appeal under Section 282 of the Act and considering the interlocutory application of the petitioners, has granted stay to the extent of 80% of the disputed tax subject to the condition of the petitioners depositing 20% of the disputed tax under order dated 27.08.2012. The said order is questioned in this revision.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that even the order to the extent of directing 20% of the amount to be deposited is not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

3. Under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the lower appellate Court has exercised discretion and it is not a case, which would deserve any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the discretion is clearly judicious. The amount, so directed, to be deposited by the petitioner is always subject to the result of the appeal. In the event of the petitioners succeeding in the appeal, they shall be entitled to refund/adjustment of the amount for future tax. Hence, no prejudice as such is discernible so as to warrant interference with the discretion exercised by the Court below.

¶19

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶21

October 15, 2012 DSK

Smt. Sarala Agrawal v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarala Agrawal v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

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

Bandaru Simhadri Appadu Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

A.B.v.Reddy. Syndicate Bank Ongole Vs the Deputy General Manageranddis Authority

Sanapala Sridharudu Vs The Prl. Secretary to Govt.

Nasyam Shaik Rasheeda Bee Vs Mayana Jaffer Khan

G. Janardhana Goud, (died) per LRs Vs The District Collector

Bolli Bixapathi, Vs Sangisetti Ramadevi