CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 620 of 2008 PETITIONER: Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Anr RESPONDENT: Akruti Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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.