Bombay High Court
M S Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur Thr. ... vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, ... on 31 August, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
3108wp969 of 2018.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.969/2018
M/s Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Shankar Nagar, Nagpur, through its Director Sunil
Satyanarayan Sarogi
...Versus...
Nagpur Municipal Corporation having its office at Civil Lines, Nagpur through
its Municipal Commissioner and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Shri N.R. Kanungo, Advocate for petitioner
Shri R.S. Kalangiwale, Advocate for respondents
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 31/08/2021
1. Heard Shri Kanungo, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Kalangiwale, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
2. Three notices of demand were issued by the
respondent no.1-Municipal Corporation on account of
municipal taxes, payable in respect of House Nos.665/A-L-1,
665/A-L-2, 665/A-L-3, owned by the present petitioners
claiming house tax of Rs.2,25,149/-, on each of the houses,
being aggrieved by which, the petitioners had approached
this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1308/2014, wherein by
3108wp969 of 2018.odt
an order dated 01/09/2014, this Court, finding that there
was remedy of appeal available under Section 406 of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short,
"the MMC Act, 1949" hereinafter) disposed of the petition
with a direction to the "Judge" under Section 406 of the
MMC Act, 1949 to decide the appeal, if filed by the
petitioner, within 15 days after complying with the other
provisions of the Act.
3. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under
Section 406 of the MMC Act, 1949 on 15/09/2014 along
with which an application for dispensing with depositing the
entire amount in dispute was also filed. By an order dated
15/09/2014, the application for dispensing with the entire
amount in dispute was rejected, in view of which rejection,
the appeal under Section 406 of the MMC Act, 1949 was not
registered at all. It is against this order, dated 15/09/2014,
that an appeal under Section 411 of the MMC Act, 1949
came to be filed bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No.240/2017.
This appeal has been dismissed by judgment dated
04/12/2017 by the learned District Judge, holding that the
appeal was not maintainable, which is the subject matter of
challenge in this petition.
4. Shri Kanungo, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the finding by the learned District Judge
3108wp969 of 2018.odt
regarding maintainability of the appeal is incorrect, in as
much as according to him, an appeal under Section 411 of
the MMC Act, 1949 would be maintainable since the same
was against the demand of tax by the respondent no.1 and
therefore, the impugned judgment would not be sustainable
in law.
5. Shri Kalangiwale, learned Counsel for the
respondents submits that since the order dated 15/09/2014
was passed on an interim application, seeking dispensation
for depositing the tax demanded due to which the appeal
itself was not registered, there is no fault with the impugned
judgment.
6. A perusal of Section 406 of the MMC Act, 1949
demonstrates that an appeal against any rateable value or the
capital value, as the case may be or tax fixed or charged
under the MMC Act would lie before the Judge, as defined in
Section 2 (29) of the MMC Act, 1949 and shall be heard and
determined by him. However, Sub Section 2 of Section 406 of
the MMC Act, 1949 imposes an embargo upon the "Judge" to
entertain such an appeal, one of them, as enumerated in
Clause (e) of Section 406 (2) being the prior deposit of the
amount of tax with the Commissioner. Section 406 (2A) of
the MMC Act, 1949 provides that where the appeal is not
filed in accordance with the provisions of Clause (a) to (e) of
3108wp969 of 2018.odt
Sub Section (2), it shall be liable to be summarily dismissed.
Admittedly, the request for dispensing with the deposit of tax
came to be rejected by the learned Judge by the order dated
15/09/2014, a result of which, the appeal as filed under
Section 406 of the MMC Act, 1949 was not registered at all.
7. A perusal of Section 411 of the MMC Act, 1949
indicates that the appeal shall lie to the District Court only in
respect of matters provided under Clause (a) and (b), which
for the sake of reference are reproduced as under :-
"Section 411. Appeals to the District Court.
An appeal shall lie to the District Court,-
(a) from any decision of the Judge in an
appeal under section 406 by which a rateable value or
a capital value, as the case may be is fixed, and
(b) from any other decision of the said Judge
in an appeal under the said section, upon a question of
law or usage having the force of law or the
construction of a document :
Provided that no such appeal shall be heard by
the District Court unless it is filed within one month
from the date of the decision of the Judge."
8. A bare perusal of Clause (a) and (b) of
Section 411 of the MMC Act, 1949 would demonstrate that
an order passed on an application for dispensing with the
3108wp969 of 2018.odt
requirement of Clause (e) of Section 406 (2) of the MMC
Act, 1949 is not one, which would fall within the scope and
ambit of Clause (a) and (b) of Section 411 of the MMC Act,
1949, in view of which, the finding rendered by the learned
District Judge cannot be faulted with. That being the
position, the writ petition is clearly without any merits
altogether and is accordingly dismissed. In the
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. All pending
civil applications are disposed of accordingly.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
