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

2012 Supreme(Bom) 2178

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
Trilok Baburao Deshpande – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corpn of Gr. City of Pune – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:N.V. Khaladkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R.S. Khadapkar, AGP.

Judgment :

1. Heard Mr. Khaladkar for the Petitioner and Mr. Khadapkar for the Respondent-Corporation.

2. The matter was heard for sometime yesterday and came to be adjourned to today for delivery of Judgment.

3. The Petitioner-landlady has questioned the revised assessment of her property under section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. That Appeal was allowed by the Small causes court Pune on 30.6.1989. Aggrieved thereby the Respondent-Municipal Corporation filed further Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Pune. That Civil Appeal No.882 of 1989 has been allowed on 22.9.1995. The landowner thereafter has filed the present Petition.

4. On 23.1.1996 this Court has issued Rule in the matter and refused to grant any interim relief. Apart from other contentions, learned counsel for the Appellant has urged that the Appeal filed was statutory and the Small Causes Court ought to have called for the records of assessment from the Municipal Commissioner. The assessment order dated 20.6.1986 was passed by the Municipal Corporation and without perusing the relevant records the Appeals could not have been decided. In the alternative and without prejudice it is submi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top