{"id":190397,"date":"2011-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-10T01:57:39","modified_gmt":"2018-06-09T20:27:39","slug":"batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                                 1                              WP 1495\/97\n\n    lgc\n                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                              WRIT PETITION NO.1495 OF 1997\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n          Batliboi Limited, a joint                  ]\n          stock company incorporated                 ]\n          under the Indian Companies                 ]\n          Act, 1913 having their                     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n          registered office at Bharat                ]\n          House, 5th Floor, 104, B. S.               ]\n          Mumbai - 400 001                           ]....   Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                     versus\n                                 \n          1. Municipal Corporation for \n              Greater Bombay, through\n                                                     ]\n                                                     ]\n              Municipal Commissioner,                ]\n                                \n              having his office at                   ]\n              Opposite C. S. T., Fort,               ]\n              Mumbai - 400 001                       ]\n                                                     ]\n               \n\n          2. Municipal Octroi Inspector              ]\n              at Dahisar Check Naka                  ]\n            \n\n\n\n              Dahisar (East), Mumbai 400 065         ]\n                                                     ]\n          3. Assistant Assessor and                  ]\n              Collector (Octroi), Assessor           ]\n\n\n\n\n\n              & Collectors Vigilance Cell            ]\n              4th Floor, Shree Chatrapati            ]\n              Shivaji Maharaj Market                 ]\n              Building, Mata Ramabai                 ]\n              Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai-400 001          ]....   Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n          Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar i\/by Kanga & Co. for the Petitioner.\n          Ms. V S Gharpure for the Respondent\/MCGM\n\n                                               CORAM :       P B MAJMUDAR &\n                                                             R M SAVANT, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                               DATE   :      17th  August 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span>\n                                                     2                               WP 1495\/97\n\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER R M SAVANT, J]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                                                                  \n    1              The Petitioner-Company is  a manufacturer  of  Industrial  Package \n\n    Air-Conditioners.       The   cause   of   filing   the   above   Petition   was   detention   of \n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n<\/pre>\n
    consignment of  its  air-conditioners which arrived at Dahisar Check  Naka  in <\/p>\n
    three different trucks.  The said trucks carrying assessable goods were detained <\/p>\n
    as the goods were undervalued by classifying the goods under Entry No. 52 of <\/p>\n
    the Octroi Rules which attracts rate at 4%, the invoice value of the goods being <\/p>\n
    Rs.1,64,000\/-though   the   goods   had   passed   the   octroi   limit   and   part   of   the <\/p>\n
    consignment was already delivered to one Precision Components Pvt. Ltd. for <\/p>\n
    whom   they   were   meant.     However,   a   part   of   the   said   consignment   was <\/p>\n
    detained by the Respondents.  A Stop Delivery Memo was issued under Rules <\/p>\n
    15  and  16  of  the   Octroi  Rules  1965  and  the   Petitioner   was   called  upon  to <\/p>\n
    produce relevant documents octroi receipt\/import invoice\/goods consignment <\/p>\n
    notes.     On   receipt   of   the   said   stop   delivery   memo   dated   3.9.1997,   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner   placed   before   the   concerned   officer   of   the   Respondent   No.1-\n<\/p>\n
    Corporation i.e Respondent No.3 herein the relevant documents. The Petitioner <\/p>\n
    also simultaneously offered to pay on the invoice value of the seven package <\/p>\n
    air-conditioners,   the   octroi   payable   at   the   rate   of   2%,   since   the   said <\/p>\n
    consignment is covered under Item 50 of Schedule-H of the Bombay Municipal <\/p>\n
    Corporation Act, 1888.  Since the Respondents did not accede to the request of <\/p>\n
    the   Petitioner   to   release   the   part   of   consignment   which   was   detained,   the <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3                               WP 1495\/97<\/p>\n
    Petitioner-Company was constrained to file the above Petition invoking the writ <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    2            The Petitioner in the above writ petition has inter alia sought the <\/p>\n
    following reliefs :-\n<\/p>\n
                 (a)             That   this   Hon’ble   Court   be   pleased   to
\n                 exercise jurisdiction  vested in  it under  Article 226 of
\n                 the Constitution of India, and be pleased to declare that
\n                 the detention of the Petitioners’ part of the assessable <\/p>\n
                 goods described in  Exhibit “A” by the  Respondents  as
\n                 illegal,   null,   void,   arbitrary   and   unconstitutional   and <\/p>\n
                 contrary to law;\n<\/p>\n
                 (b)             That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to <\/p>\n
                 declare that the refusal by the Respondents to accept
\n                 Petitioners payment of octroi at the rate of 2% on the
\n                 invoice   value   inclusive   of   excise   duty   on   the   said
\n                 consignment of goods described in Exhibit “A” hereto is <\/p>\n
                 illegal,   null,   void,   unconstitutional   and   contrary   to
\n                 law ;\n<\/p>\n
                 (c)           That this Hon’ble Court further be pleased
\n                 to permanently restrain the Respondents, their officers,
\n                 servants   and   agents   by   a   permanent   order   and <\/p>\n
                 injunction   from   in   any   manner   interfering   with   the
\n                 Petitioners clearing the said assessable goods described
\n                 in Exhibit “A” hereto upon payment by the Petitioners of
\n                 octroi at the rate of 2% on the invoice value inclusive of
\n                 the excise duty in respect of the said consignment of <\/p>\n
                 goods described in “A” hereto;\n<\/p>\n
                 (c)(i)          That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue
\n                 a   Writ   of   Mandamus   or   a   writ   in   the   nature   of
\n                 mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate   writ,   order   or
\n                 direction   restraining   the   Respondents   their   officers,
\n                 servants and agents from in any manner levying octroi
\n                 duty   in   respect   of   the   Petitioners   package   type   air
\n                 conditioners in excess of the rate prescribed for Entry
\n                 50 of Schedule-H of the Bombay Municipal Corporation
\n                 Act, 1888, and further directing the Respondents, their
\n                 officers,   servants   and   agents   to   forthwith   withdraw <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       4                                WP 1495\/97<\/p>\n
                   and\/or cancel the said notice dated 17\/18th September
\n                   1997 (Exhibit “N” hereto).”\n<\/p>\n
    3              The above Petition  had come  for admission  on   25th  September <\/p>\n
    1997 on which day an interim order came to be passed by a Division Bench of <\/p>\n
    this   Court.   By   the   said   interim   order   the   Respondents   were   directed   to <\/p>\n
    forthwith release the goods seized by them on the condition that the Petitioner <\/p>\n
    would be pay the  octroi  duty due  and payable on  the  basis  of  the  original <\/p>\n
    invoices.   It   was   further   directed   that   the   Petitioner   should   fully   co-operate <\/p>\n
    during the investigation which is sought to be carried out by the Respondents <\/p>\n
    with regard to the alleged acts committed by the Petitioner-Company or by its <\/p>\n
    agent.\n<\/p>\n
    4              In the context of the reliefs sought in the above Petition, as also in <\/p>\n
    the   context  of  the  allegations   made  by  the   Respondents  qua   the  Petitioner-\n<\/p>\n
    Company  it  would be  apposite  to  reproduce  Paragraph-9  of  the  affidavit  in <\/p>\n
    reply filed by the Respondents herein. The same is reproduced as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                   “9              From   the   above,   it   will   be   clear   that   the
\n                   petitioners   and\/or   their   agents,   knowingly   fully   well
\n                   and consciously deviced the fraudulent documents with
\n                   malafide intention to evade the payment of octroi in all
\n                   the abovementioned 3 cases by fraudulently producing
\n                   faked documents showing value of the goods imported
\n                   in the City on the lower side and having brought into
\n                   the City the materials\/goods on different names. I say
\n                   that,   this   being   clear   case   of   deliberate   intention   to
\n                   evade   the   octroi,   these   respondents   are   entitled   to
\n                   investigate the matter thoroughly in order to ascertain
\n                   the persons involved in this particular racket and the <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     5                                WP 1495\/97<\/p>\n
                  quantum of evasion of octroi.   These respondents are
\n                  not   in   issue   on   the   rate   at   which   octroi   is   to   be
\n                  collected.   I   say   that   if   these   respondents   are   not <\/p>\n
                  permitted   to   thoroughly   investigate   the   matter   and
\n                  ascertain   the   persons   responsible   in   the     evasion   of <\/p>\n
                  payment   of   octroi,   it   will   set   bad   precedent.     These
\n                  respondents   are   further   entitled   to   prosecute   the
\n                  persons involved in deliberate and intentional evasion
\n                  of   payment   of   octroi   u\/s.478-1A   and   478-1B   of   the
\n                  B.M.C. Act. The petitioners’ contention that his regular <\/p>\n
                  agent   was   not   available,   is   also   after   thought   and
\n                  statement   made   in   petition   is   false   statement   in   as
\n                  much   as   the   petitioners’   regular   agent   i.e.   Kamal
\n                  Agency had in fact cleared consignment of other parties <\/p>\n
                  on 2.9.1997 as evident from the records maintained by
\n                  these respondents. Act of the petitioners in approaching <\/p>\n
                  some   other   agent   in   clearing   their   consignment,   has
\n                  been done with clear intention to evade the payment of
\n                  octroi.     The   petitioners   are   not   even   revealing   the <\/p>\n
                  names   of   the   agents   to   whom   they   have   engaged   in
\n                  clearing the consignment imported into this City.”\n<\/p>\n
    5             Reading   of   Para-9   of   the   affidavit   in   reply   of   the   Respondents <\/p>\n
    therefore discloses that in so far as rate at which the octroi was due in respect <\/p>\n
    of the goods in question, the Respondents had no issue.  The issue was only as <\/p>\n
    regards the alleged fraudulent documents produced by the Petitioner on the <\/p>\n
    basis   of   which   it   is   the   case   of   the   Respondents   that   the   goods   were <\/p>\n
    undervalued.\n<\/p>\n
    6             During   the   course   of   hearing   of   the   above   Petition,   Shri <\/p>\n
    Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, fairly conceded <\/p>\n
    that in view of the interim order dated 25th  September 1997, except prayer <\/p>\n
    clause (c)(i), all the other prayers have worked themselves out, since the goods <\/p>\n
    were directed to be released by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                         6                                WP 1495\/97\n\n\n\n    7               In so far as prayer clause (c)(i) is concerned, the said prayer is \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                               \n<\/pre>\n
    referable to the document dated 17th September 1997 which has been annexed <\/p>\n
    to the Petitioner later on as Exhibit “N” by way of amendment. The author of <\/p>\n
    the said document is the Assessor & Collector Vigilance Cell (Octroi) of the <\/p>\n
    Respondent No.1-Corporation.   In the said letter dated 17th September 1997, it <\/p>\n
    is stated that it is prima facie noticed that octroi has been paid less due to <\/p>\n
    wrong   classification   of   the   consignments.   Therefore   the   Petitioner   was <\/p>\n
    requested to furnish the certified copies of Excise Gate Passes, Import Invoices, <\/p>\n
    Challans and Lorry Receipts for confirmation of value declared at the time of <\/p>\n
    import and confirmation of the correctness of payment of octroi.  By the said <\/p>\n
    letter   the   Petitioner   was   requested   to   pay   the   difference   of   Rs.81,473\/-\n<\/p>\n
    provisionally as mentioned in the accompanying statement pending verification <\/p>\n
    of the documents called for.\n<\/p>\n
    8               In so far as the said letter dated 17th September 1997 is concerned, <\/p>\n
    it is contended by Shri Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner, that since in the affidavit in reply the Respondents have stated that <\/p>\n
    since   there   is   no   issue   as   regards   the   rate   at   which   the   duty   is   payable   in <\/p>\n
    respect of the goods in question, the said issue of classification therefore does <\/p>\n
    not survive for consideration in respect of the goods in question.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                     7                               WP 1495\/97\n\n    9              The   interim   order   dated   25th  September   1997   permitting   the \n\n<\/pre>\n
    Respondents to clear the goods was passed on the basis of the document dated <\/p>\n
    17th  September 1997 and it is the case of the Respondents that there was an <\/p>\n
    undervaluation of goods in question and the gravamen of the allegations of the <\/p>\n
    Respondents was that the Petitioner had produced fraudulent documents.\n<\/p>\n
    10             The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   Respondent-Corporation <\/p>\n
    Ms.Gharpure stated that no investigation has been carried out pursuant to the <\/p>\n
    said interim order dated 25th September 1997. In view of what is stated by the <\/p>\n
    Respondents in their affidavit in reply we do not deem it necessary to go into <\/p>\n
    the aspect of the classification of the goods in question. However,  we permit <\/p>\n
    the   Respondents   to   carry  out   the   investigation   in   terms   of   the   said  interim <\/p>\n
    order dated 25th  September 1997 within a period of three months from date.\n<\/p>\n
    This is in view of the fact that there is an allegation of fraudulent documents <\/p>\n
    being produced by the Petitioner.   If the said investigation is not completed <\/p>\n
    within the aforesaid period, the Respondents would thereafter not be entitled <\/p>\n
    to carry out such investigation and the classification as made by the Petitioner <\/p>\n
    at the time of payment of octroi under Entry 50 of the Octroi Rules would be <\/p>\n
    final   and   conclusive.     In   so   far   as   the   investigation   is   concerned,   the <\/p>\n
    contentions of the Petitioner are explicitly kept open and the Petitioner would <\/p>\n
    also be entitled to rely upon the pronouncements of this Court in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   8                               WP 1495\/97\n\n    11            Since it is the case of the Petitioner that all the relevant documents \n\n<\/pre>\n
    have already been submitted to the Respondents, the averment to that effect is <\/p>\n
    found in Para-10 of the Petition, the Respondents would, therefore, carry out <\/p>\n
    investigation   on   the   basis   of   the   said   documents   which   have   been   already <\/p>\n
    submitted to the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    12            Rule is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms with parties <\/p>\n
    to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
    [R.M.SAVANT, J]                                                      [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]\n                                \n           \n        \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:39:16 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant 1 WP 1495\/97 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1495 OF 1997 Batliboi Limited, a joint ] stock company incorporated ] under the Indian Companies ] […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBatliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-09T20:27:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T20:27:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1646,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T20:27:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-09T20:27:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T20:27:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011"},"wordCount":1646,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011","name":"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T20:27:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/batliboi-limited-vs-municipal-corporation-for-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Batliboi Limited vs Municipal Corporation For on 17 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190397\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}