Mahanagar Palika & Anr Vs. Akruti Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Anr  Insc 80
(23 January 2008)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Bombay High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal
was filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by learned Additional
Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31.3.2000 in Municipal Appeal No. 19 of
2000 under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short
appeal, the order of assessment passed by the present appellants was under
challenge. The order of the respondents related to refusal to entertain the
complaint of the respondents and confirmation of rateable value.
Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the main plank of the
argument of learned counsel for the appellants was that the High Court has not
applied its mind to various points urged and after noting the submissions came
to abrupt conclusions. In other words it is submitted the judgment is
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand said that though
elaborate analysis have not been made, yet the conclusions have been arrived at
after noting the submissions.
is to be noted that various contentious pleas were raised in the appeal. The
High Court ought to have analysed the factual position in the background of
principles of law involved and then to decide the appeal. That has not been
is to be noted that after making detailed reference to the arguments and
contentions raised, abrupt conclusions were arrived at by the High Court. That
is not a proper way to dispose of the first appeal.
the circumstances without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we
set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to it
for fresh consideration on merit in accordance with law.
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.