BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA & ANR. v. AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT
P. SATHASIVAM
Judgment Date: 2008-01-23
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the impugned High Court judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merit in accordance with law; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; remitted to High Court for fresh consideration on merit; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA
ANR.

Respondents

AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD.
ANR.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shweta Mazmudar
• Atul Y. Chitale
• Mrs. Suchitra Atul B Chitale

Counsels for Respondents

• Indu Malhotra
• Shashi M. Kapila
• Vikas Mehta

Case Synopsis & Summary

BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA & ANR. v. AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR. concerns an appeal under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 against an assessment order and rateable value determined by the Small Causes Court. The respondents had challenged the appellant's order; the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal in First Appeal No. 1095 of 2000. The appellants sought leave to challenge the High Court's decision in this Supreme Court. The key issue was whether the High Court's disposal of the first appeal was properly reasoned. The appellants argued that the High Court failed to analyse the factual background in light of the applicable legal principles and advanced contentions, leading to abrupt conclusions. The respondents contended that the High Court's conclusions followed from the submissions and the record, even if not elaborately reasoned. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately analyze the factual position within the framework of the law, and criticized the abrupt conclusions. It exercised its power to set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. The decision therefore ends with the appeal being allowed and no order as to costs. The remand was ordered to ensure that the merits receive proper analysis.

Provisions of Law Cited

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, s. 217

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submitted that the High Court's order allowing the appeal under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was non-reasoned and failed to analyse the factual position in the light of applicable law. They argued that the High Court did not apply its mind to the various contentious pleas raised, and after noting submissions arrived at abrupt conclusions, which is not a proper disposal of the first appeal. They urged that the matter be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law, with full analysis of the legal principles and factual matrix.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the High Court did consider the submissions and the conclusions were arrived at after taking into account the arguments; though the analysis was not elaborate, the decision reflected engagement with the submissions. They argued that the High Court's disposal did not suffer from non-reasoning to the extent alleged, and that the decision should be upheld, enabling the matter to proceed on its merits consistent with legal principles. They urged that the order of the Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court be sustained and that remand should be avoided if possible.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008) 1S.C.R.1118 A _,:._ -~ ' ## BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA & ANR. _v_ AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 620 of 2008) JANUARY 23, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] _Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888_ - _s. 217_ - _First appeal_ - _Allowed by High Court_ - _On appeal, held: Order of High Court was non-reasoned_ - _Such disposal of first appeal_ c _is not permissible_ - _Hence matter remitted to High Court._ Appellant refused to entertain the complaint of the respondents and to confirm rateable value. Respondent filed appeal uls 217 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The appeal was allowed by High Court. D In appeal to this court, appellant questioned the judgment of High Court on the ground that it was nonreasoned. > Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High E Court, the Court HELD: Various contentious pleas were raised in the appeal under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The High Court ought to have analysed the factual position F in the background of principles of law involved and then to decide the appeal. That has not been done. 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. Hence the matter is remitted to High Court for[G ] fresh consideration on merit in accordance with law. [Paras 5, 6 and 7] [1119-G, H; 1120-A-B] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 620 of 2008. H 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1119 ... A From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.4.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 1095 of 2000. Shweta Mazmudar, Atul Y. Chitale and Mrs. Suchitra Atul B[Chitale ][for ][the ][Appellants. ] lndu Malhotra, Shashi M. Kapila and Vikas Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c 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 !Jy the respondents challenging the order passed by learned Additional D 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 appellants E[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 F 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 G[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 H[the ][factual ][position ][in ][the ][background ][of ][principles ] of[law ][involved ] BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA&ANR. _v._ AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR. [PASAYAT, J.] 1120 A 8 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 C any order as to costs. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.