Broadway Centre And Anr vs The Kolkata Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2798 Cal/2

                                                               OD-6
                          RVWO/12/2022
                               with
                            APO/5/2022
                          WPO/983/2016
                         IA NO:GA/1/2022

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                          ORIGINAL SIDE

                  BROADWAY CENTRE AND ANR.
                            Versus
           THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE

The Hon'ble JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA Date : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2022.

Appearance:

Mr. L. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. N. Chakraborty, ADvocate ....for appellants

Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Advocate Mr. Debangshu Mondal, Advocate Ms. Manisha Nath, Advocate ...for KMC

Ms. Tapati Samanta, Advocate ...for State.

THE COURT: The judgement and order dated March 25, 2022

delivered by this Bench, whereby APO/5/2022 along with the connected

application were dismissed, is the subject matter of this review

application.

The appeal was preferred against a judgment and order dated

January 25, 2021, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court

dismissed the appellants' writ petition challenging annual valuation of

the premises in question for certain periods. The learned Single Judge

was of the view that the conduct of the writ petitioners lacked in bona

fides. A huge amount of money on account of property tax is due to the

Corporation. To the learned Judge's query as to how much the writ

petitioners were prepared to deposit by way of interim measure to show

their bona fides, the writ petitioners could not make any offer. The

learned Judge was also of the view that the writ petitioners were not

entitled to reopen old assessments for various periods over the last two

decades. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs

assessed at Rs.1 lakh.

We affirmed the order of the learned Judge in appeal. We recorded

our opinion that the appellants were sleeping over their rights. There was

undue delay on their part in approaching the learned Judge. Delay

defeats equity. We also recorded our view that the appellants have not

come with clean hands. A litigant, who approaches a Court of equity,

must do equity, which the appellants have not done.

We recorded the judgements cited on behalf of the appellants and

we also recorded our view as to why those judgments would not help the

appellants.

In view of the aforesaid, we cannot accept the submission made on

behalf of the review applicants that the judgments cited on behalf of the

appellants have not been dealt with in the order under review which

amounts to error apparent on the face of the order.

We find no ground to review our earlier order. In review

jurisdiction, this Court will not act as an appellate court. The review

application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J)

(KAUSIK CHANDA, J.)

sm AR(CR)