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

2002 Supreme(Guj) 756

KUNDAN SINGH, R.K.ABICHANDANI
KANAIYA PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ASSESSMENT AND RECOVERY OFFICER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: BHASKAR TANNA, K.J.BRAHMBHATT

R. K. ABICHANDANI, KUNDAN SINGH, J.

( 1 ) IN this group of petitions raising identical dispute, the petitioners have challenged the special notices dated 1 3/02/1996 issued to them by the respondent - Municipal Corporation under Rules 15 (2) and 20 (2) of Chapter VIII of the Schedule to the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 informing the petitioners that entries were made in the assessment book under Rule 9 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the said Rules, and that if they have any objection against the same, they may be filed within the time mentioned in the notice. There is also a prayer in all these petitions seeking a declaration that the respondents had charged Rs. 25=00 from the petitioners on the complaint form illegally, and that it should be refunded. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these matters stated before us that the petitioners were not pressing for this relief in these matters.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, their plots of Pandesara Industrial Estate were brought within the extended limits of the respondent No. 2 - Corporation with effect from 15/11/1994. Before that, the limits of the respondent Corporation had been extended with









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