Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Punjab National Bank vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 December, 2023
11.
11-12-2023
(Ct. no.06)
debajyoti
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 522 of 2020
+
IA NO:CAN/1/2019 (Old No:CAN/10937/2019)
Punjab National Bank
Vs.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Md. Nasiruddin,
Mr. Md. Rahman,
Mr. Md. Janbazuddin
... For the Appellant.
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee,
Ms. Tanushree Das Gupta
... For Kolkata Municipal
Corporation.
Mr. Chayan Gupta,
Mr. Viswarup Acharyya
... For Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
connected application are taken up together for
hearing.
A judgment and order dated August 02, 2019,
whereby the writ petition of the respondent nos.4 and
5 herein being W.P. No.1879(W) of 2019, was disposed
of by a learned Judge of this Court, is the subject
matter of challenge in this appeal. The appeal was
filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce, which
subsequently amalgamated with Punjab National
Bank (in short "the Bank").
The Bank was in occupation of a portion of a
building as lessee under the respondent no.4 herein.
It appears that Property Tax fell due in respect of the
building in question. Kolkata Municipal Corporation
(in short "KMC") issued a notice attaching the rent
payable by the Bank to the landlords/owners.
Assailing such notice, the respondent nos.4 and 5
herein, as the owners, approached the learned Single
Judge.
When the matter was first moved, an order dated
January 31, 2019 was passed by a learned Judge,
relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-
" In such circumstances, the
petitioner, bank and corporation
authorities will have a joint meeting in
which, the respondent no.3 will
apportion the respective liability
between the petitioner, bank, other
occupants if there be any in the
building. The petitioner and the bank
are at liberty to inform the respondent
nos.3 of the occupants of the building,
the respective areas of their occupation
and the rent/occupation charges such
persons pay.
The Court is informed that,
apportionment has since been done. This
order will not prevent the respondent
no.3 to revisit such apportionment
afresh or to accept the existing
apportionment if it is justified.
There are amounts lying in the
suspense account of the corporation.
Immediately upon apportionment being
completed, corporation will adjust the
amount lying in the suspense account
with the liability of the respective
parties, in accordance with law.
Corporation will also adjust any
other amount received by it from any
person on account of attachment or
otherwise towards property tax. "
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Assessor-
Collector (North), KMC, held a joint meeting which
was attended by the respondent nos.4 and 5/writ
petitioners and the Bank Authorities. An order dated
March 27, 2019 was passed by the Assessor-
Collector, the operative portion whereof reads as
follows:-
" So, as per LOI dt.25-03-19,
outstanding dues payable by Bank-
Principal Rs.1,57,40,625/- out of
Rs.1,82,22,105/-
Interest Rs.2,66,43,864.71 out of
Rs.3,03,50,146.54
Penalty Rs.23,61,095.75 out of
Rs.27,33,315.75
Total payable amount of Bank is
Rs.4,47,45,586/- and that of owner is
Rs.65,59,985/-.
After deducting the S/A already
deposited by Bank i.e. Rs.1,56,84,108/-
in total wef 15-11-2003 upto 05-03-2019
the net payable amount of Bank as on
date towards the existing outstanding
dues of the premises is Rs.2,90,61,478/-
and net payable amount of owner as on
date is Rs.65,54,985/- after deducting
balance S/A i.e. Rs.5000/- deposit
dt.01-09-1983.
In this connection, it is pertinent
to mention that as per submission of the
Bank authorities, they had paid a sum of
Rs.37,03,788/-, through 7 (Seven) paid
up receipts (original not submitted)
against some specific quarters of bills
i.e. wef.2/91-92 to 1/99-00. Since the
said payment was made against direct
bills which are not reflecting as
outstanding dues in the list of arrear
(unpaid) bills, there is hardly any
scope to give credit of the said
payments specifically to the Bank only
for calculation of their prorata share
of liabilities of property tax. "
Subsequently, when the matter came up for final
disposal, another learned Judge passed the impugned
judgment and order, the operative portion whereof
reads as follows:-
" Be that as it may, I direct the
respondent Bank to make payment of the
balance amount of Rs.2,90,61,478/- to
the suspense account of the Corporation
within six weeks from today.
If such amount is paid within the
time as indicated above, then the Chief
Manager, Revenue (North), Kolkata
Municipal Corporation shall give hearing
to the respondent, Bank or its
authorised representative and will pass
a reasoned order within two weeks and
thereafter communicate the decision to
the parties within one week.
Needless to mention, parties are at
liberty to produce all the documents
pertaining to the issue in question at
the time of hearing.
The Chief Manager, Revenue (North),
Kolkata is directed to consider those
documents at the time of taking
decision.
Further needless to mention, if the
Bank fails to deposit the entire balance
amount within the stipulated time as
indicated above, then the Corporation is
at liberty to realise that amount from
the respondent Bank in accordance with
law. "
Being aggrieved, the Bank has come up by way
of this appeal.
Learned advocate, representing the Bank, says
that the Assessor-Collector has imposed substantial
penalty and interest on the Bank. The Bank was not
at fault at any point of time. Apportionment of
Property Tax liability had not been made. Even then,
to show its bonafides, the Bank went on depositing
moneys in its Suspense Account maintained by KMC.
The learned Single Judge should not have directed the
Bank to pay the amount of Rs.2,90,61,478/- to KMC
as a pre-condition for the Chief Manager, Revenue
(North), KMC, granting a hearing to the Bank.
However, learned advocate, on instructions, says that
the Bank is prepared to deposit 50% of the aforesaid
amount, without prejudice to its rights and
contentions. Upon such deposit, the Chief Manager,
Revenue (North), KMC, should give a hearing to the
Bank and revisit the issue of the Bank's share of
Property Tax liability.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for KMC, says
that there is no infirmity in the order under appeal.
The penalty and interest has been imposed for good
reason and in accordance with law. No leniency
should be shown to the Bank. It is not that the Bank
does not have the money. KMC shall comply with the
learned Judge's order if the Bank complies with the
order.
Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent nos.4 and 5 (writ petitioners), says that
his clients have availed of a Waiver Scheme
introduced by KMC and have paid-off the entire
Property Tax dues in respect of the concerned
building. Now, the Bank should reimburse the writ
petitioners as per agreement between the parties and
as per law.
We have considered the respective contentions of
the parties. We are not inclined to enter into the
claims and counter-claims between the Bank and the
owners of the property.
We only modify the order under appeal to the
extent that if the Bank deposits 50% of the amount of
Rs.2,90,61,478/-, as has been found to be due by the
Bank to KMC by the Assessor-Collector (North), KMC,
within four weeks from date, the Chief Manager,
Revenue (North), KMC, shall give a hearing to the
Bank and the writ petitioners or their authorized
representatives and will pass a reasoned order within
two weeks from the date of hearing. The order shall
be communicated to the Bank and the writ petitioners
within a week from the date of the order.
We clarify that if the writ petitioners have
liquidated the entire Property Tax dues in respect of
the concerned building, the money that the Bank will
deposit in the Suspense Account of KMC pursuant to
this order, shall be adjusted against the future
Property Tax in respect of the building in question
and to that extent, will enure to the benefit of the writ
petitioners.
The Bank says that it will comply with the
reasoned order to be passed by the Chief Manager,
Revenue (North), KMC.
The appeal and the connected application are,
accordingly, disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance
of all necessary formalities.
(M. V. Muralidaran, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
