Anand Vyankatrao Gundyal vs Solapur Municipal Corporation, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3811 Bom

      IRESH SIDDHARAM   Digitally signed by IRESH
                        SIDDHARAM MASHAL
      MASHAL            Date: 2022.04.08 12:36:08 +0530




                                                                                204.8606.07 wp.doc

ISM
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8606 OF 2007

              ANAND VYANKATRAO GUNDYAL                                          ....PETITIONER

                      V/s.

              SOLAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,                               .....RESPONDENT
              SOLAPUR

                                                       WITH
                                       CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8643 OF 2007

              ANAND VYANKATRAO GUNDYAL                                          ....PETITIONERS
              AND ORS

                      V/s.

              SOLAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,                                    ....RESPONDENTS
              SOLAPUR

              Mr. Arun H. Palekar Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. Rajshekhar S. Alange Advocate for Respondents


                                             CORAM :      NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                             DATE:        APRIL 7, 2022.

              P.C.:

              1)      Order of the learned District Judge passed in Civil Misc. Appeal

No. 89 of 2004 under Section 411 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal

204.8606.07 wp.doc

Corporation Act, 1949 is questioned on following grounds:

(a) That the Court below has failed to consider that Suit

property is leased for residential purpose.

(b) There cannot be retrospective applicability and recovery of

taxes in view of provision of Section 140 of the Bombay

Provincial and Municipal Corporation Act and

(c) Ratable value is incorrectly calculated.

2) So as to substantiate aforesaid contentions, he has drawn

support from the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Municipal

Corporation of the City of Pune V/s. United Western Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd.1 as according to him, taxes cannot be levied and

recovered for a period of beyond one year.

3) In addition to above, his contentions are, Appellate Court ought

to have framed the issues for consideration as contemplated under

Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Drawing support from recent Judgment of the Apex Court in the

matter of K. Karuppuraj V/s. M. Ganesan2 he would urge that

Appellate Court is in error.

1 2006(3) Bom.C.R. 683 2 2022 SAR (Civ) 86

204.8606.07 wp.doc

4) In response to this, counsel for Respondent-Corporation has

relied on Tax Rules under Chapter 8 of Bombay Provincial Municipal

Corporation Act.

5) Stand over to 28/04/2022. Part heard.

6) In the meantime, respective counsel are requested to circulate

their synopsis alongwith points to be argued.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]