Delhi High Court
M/S.Barmalt India Pvt.Ltd vs K.S.Mehra And Others on 14 July, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
10.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 751/2008
Date of Judgment 14 July, 2010
M/S BARMALT INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Dinesh Agnani &
Mr. Rahul Arora, Advs.
versus
K.S. MEHRA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the Judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL):
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have been
willfully violated the order dated 11.2.2003 passed in WP(C)
No.1104/2003. Operative portion of the order dated 11.12.2003
reads as under:
"The petitioner has further stated that on more than one
occasions he has to obtain duplicate bills and whenever he
has gone to the authorities the matter in issue has not been
settled.
In view of the aforesaid learned counsel for the
respondent fairly states that a date of hearing may be fixed
before the concerned authority for petitioner to appear for
finalisation of accounts of house tax. The petitioner shall
produce the receipts and petitioner will be informed in case
any balance is due after taking into account the receipts and
the basis for the same.
The petitioner to appear before Deputy Assessor and
Collector on 24th February, 2003 at 3.00 P.M.
In view of the aforesaid the impugned notice dated
17.1.2003 is hereby quashed and the writ petition stands
allowed in the aforesaid terms."
2. Mr. Agnani submits that petitioner appeared before the Deputy
Assessor and Collector on 24.2.2003 at 3 p.m, the time and date,
CONT.CAS(C) 751/2008 Page 1 of 5
fixed by the Court. However, the Deputy Assessor and Collector did
not supply the necessary documents as requested by the petitioner.
Counsel further submits that soon after the meeting on 24.2.2003
petitioner issued a communication to the respondent on 25.2.2003
wherein it was stated that the petitioner had produced in original all
receipts evidencing deposit of property tax as also communications
addressed to the respondent in details which were received by them.
Petitioner also informed the respondent that the petitioner had not
received the assessment order in respect of property nor any bills
were received by them and payments were made on obtaining
duplicate bills. Petitioner requested for supply of copies of
assessment orders, basis and calculation of ratable value fixed for
the four properties and area wise break-up of property tax payable.
Petitioner thereafter issued various letters to the respondents
including letters dated 15.3.2003, 22.4.2003, 27.9.2003 and
7.10.2004. Copies of these letters have been placed on record. It is
submitted that all these letters were hand delivered and bear the
stamp and initials of the persons who has received the same. It is
next contended that despite the orders passed by this Court as also
the various communications issued the respondents have failed to
comply with the order dated 11.2.2003 and respondents issued a
demand dated 19.9.2008 which has led to the filing of the present
contempt petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of non-compliance
with the order dated 11.2.2003 serious prejudice has been caused to
his rights in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to
avail of the benefits of various scheme formulated by the MCD by
CONT.CAS(C) 751/2008 Page 2 of 5
which either no interest was charged or rebate was given to the
assesses.
4. Counsel for the respondent submits that in case the petitioner
wanted to avail of the scheme, the petitioner could have himself
availed all these benefits without waiting for the information.
However, counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the
petitioner no amount was due as he had made all the payments and
the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that neither
assessment orders were being supplied to him nor the basis or
calculation on which the assessment had been made and also that no
bills were issued to him. However, as a law abiding citizen he was
obtaining duplicate bills and made the payments. Thus, in the
absence of any bill or demand there was no occasion for the
petitioner to approach the MCD.
5. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the meeting which was
fixed by this Court on 24.2.2003 the respondent was given the
information sought and thus no contempt is made out. It is,
however, admitted by the respondents that various letters were
received to which no reply was given and also that no written order
was passed after the meeting which was held on 24.2.2003 nor
minutes of the meeting were drawn up.
6. Reading of the order dated 11.2.2003 passed in the writ petition
would show that petitioner had impugned the order of attachment
dated 17.1.2003 on the ground that he had been paying house tax
regularly after taking into account the rebate which the petitioner
was entitled to. Petitioner wanted the issue, relating to payment
made to MCD be settled. Accordingly, the Court fixed the time and
date to enable the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Assessor
CONT.CAS(C) 751/2008 Page 3 of 5
and Collector, MCD. Reading of the letter dated 25.2.2003 would
show that the petitioner had produced all the receipts in original
evidencing deposit of property tax and also produced copies of all
the letters addressed to the MCD, duly received by the MCD. Reading
of the letter would further show that petitioner company informed
the Deputy Assessor and Collector, MCD, that they have not received
the Assessment Order and have also not received any bill in respect
of the property and they have been making payments year after year
after obtaining the duplicate bill. The petitioner company made its
stand clear to the MCD that there would be no outstanding dues in
case rebate of 20% is accounted for in their books against the
payments made by them. While concluding the petitioner demand
copies of (i) assessment orders with regard to their properties; (ii)
basis and calculation of rateable value; and (iii) year-wise breakup of
property tax payable by them for the properties. This communication
as also subsequent communications were duly received by the MCD
to which no response was given, which can only lead to the
conclusion that the MCD did not comply with the order in right
perspective.
7. While learned counsel for the MCD submits that the factum of the
meeting has not been denied by the petitioner, thus, the order duly
stands complied with. This submission of counsel for the MCD is
without any merit as the order was to be complied with in letter and
spirit and with a view to give finality to the matter. In case the
demanded documents had been supplied or the position had been
clarified, as sought to be urged by counsel for the MCD, surely the
MCD would have either replied to the various communications
received by them and rebutted the contents of the letters.
CONT.CAS(C) 751/2008 Page 4 of 5
8. Giving this situation, prima facie I am of the view that the MCD did
not comply with the order dated 11.2.2003, however, no orders are
called for and liberty is granted to the petitioner to assail the demand
letter dated 19.9.2008.
9. Having regard to the facts of this case and the stand taken by the
parties, the operation of the impugned demand is stayed for a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order to enable the
petitioner to assail the demand in accordance with law. Liberty is
also granted to the petitioner to raise such grounds as may be
available to him including the prejudice which is sought to have
been caused on account of non-compliance with the order dated
11.2.2003.
10. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been forced to
approach this Court. The present petition is disposed of subject to
payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner within six weeks. Mr.
Agnani submits that the cost may be paid to the Delhi High Court
Legal Aid Committee. Ordered accordingly.
11. Petition stands disposed of.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
July 14, 2010
'aj'
