Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2109/1994 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2109 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
A'BAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant(s)
Versus
DIAMOND
TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MG NAGARKAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 11/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present appeal arises against the judgement and order dated
21.5.1992 passed by the learned Small Causes Judge in Municipal
Valuation Appeal No.12195 of 1990, whereby the learned Judge has
fixed GRV of the premises at Rs.76,932/- with the direction that
conservancy tax shall be at 9% for the year 1986-87 and 1987-88 and
13% for the year 1988-89 and 1989-90.
The
relevant facts are that the assessment of Municipal Tax was made by
the appellant Corporation of the premises bearing Survey No.210 at
Rs.2,51,426/- and the conservancy tax was also charged at 22% up to
1987-88 and 20% up to 1989-90. As the respondents were aggrieved by
the said Municipal assessment they preferred the appeal before the
learned Small Causes Judge. The learned Judge, at the conclusion of
the appeal passed the aforesaid judgement and order against which
the present appeal.
We
have heard Mr.Nagarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.
We have considered the judgement and the reasons recorded by the
learned Judge. We have also considered the R & P.
The
perusal of the judgement and the reasons recorded at paragraph 5 of
the judgement go to show that the Small Causes Court, in the other
matter in respect of the Textile Mills located in the nearby area of
Nikol and Thakkerbapanagar, had found that appropriate assessment of
GRV should be at Re.1 per sq. mtrs., where construction is RCC, but
if the construction is other than RCC, the assessment is Re.0.50 per
sq. mtr. Taking the basis of the view taken by the Court in the
earlier matter, GRV is fixed for the present premises. Even in
respect of conservancy tax, the earlier decision has been taken into
consideration. No other material is brought to the notice of this
Court, nor before the lower appellate Court.
Under
these circumstances, if the learned Judge has followed its earlier
decision and there being no other material to the contrary having
brought to the notice of it, it cannot be said that any error has
been committed or any perverse view is taken.
In
the result, the appeal is meritless and hence, dismissed. No order
as to costs.
(Jayant Patel, J.)
(R. M. Chhaya, J.)
vinod
Top