SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 111

2008(1) Supreme 669
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Akruti Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 620 of 2008
Decided on : 23-01-2008

important point
Disposing a first appeal without analyzing the factual position in the background of principles of law involved is not proper.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – High Court coming to abrupt conclusions without analyzing the factual position in the background of principles of law involved – Not tenable – Matter vemitted back. (Paras 5 to 7)

       Facts of the case:

       1.Respondents challenged in appeal the order of assessment by the appellant.

       2.The Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court refused to entertain the complaint of the respondents and confirmation of rateable value.

       3.The High Court allowed the appeal by the respondent.

       Findings of the Court :

       High Court has not acted in a proper way to dispose of first appeal.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31.3.2000 in Municipal Appeal No. 19 of 2000 under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short the Act). In the appeal, the order of assessment passed by the present appellants was under challenge. The order of the respondents related to refusal to entertain the complaint of the respondents and confirmation of rateable value.

3.Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the main plank of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants was that the High Court has not applied its mind to various points urged and after noting the submissions came to abrupt conclusions. In other words it is submitted the judgment is practically non-reasoned.

4.Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand said that though elaborate analysis have not been made, yet the conclusions have been arrived at after noting the submissions.

5.It is to be noted that various contentious pleas were raised in the appeal. The High Court ought to have analysed the factual position in the background of principles of law involved and then to decide the appeal. That has not been done.

6.It is to be noted that after making detailed reference to the arguments and contentions raised, abrupt conclusions were arrived at by the High Court. That is not a proper way to dispose of the first appeal.

7.In the circumstances without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration on merit in accordance with law.

8.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.

***********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top