Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Neelima Tripathi vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 22 April, 2026
SLP(C) No.990/2022
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.990/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-01-2022
in CM No. 2508/2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
NEELIMA TRIPATHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 10692/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Ms. Sukriti Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Srinivasan Ramaswamy, Adv. Mr. Ronak Shankar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Goel, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2026.04.25 15:07:28 IST 1 Reason: SLP(C) No.990/2022 Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Aman Jha, Adv.
Ms. Sadhana Saddy, Adv.
Mr. Navroop J., Adv.
Mr. Divyam Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Disha Thakkar, Adv.
R.Nos.1 & 2 Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR Mr. Ashwin Kataria, Adv.
Mr. Garvit Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. This petition arise from an interim order passed by the High Court dated 14.01.2022 by which the High Court declined to grant any interim relief to the petitioner insofar as the demand made by the council towards property tax is concerned.
2. The impugned interim order reads thus:-
“6. By this application, the petitioner seeks ad- interim stay of the impugned notice dated 23.12.2021 bearing No. Notice U/S 72/2021- 2022/17221/189/Dy. Dir (Tax-11) issued by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The petitioner seeks restraint against enforcement of any demand or taking of any coercive action against the respondent in pursuance of the impugned notice aforesaid.
7. We are not inclined to pass any interim order considering the fact that the petitioner is seeking stay in respect of a possible tax demand. It is well settled that the interest of the revenue cannot be jeopardised and courts should not stay tax demands.
We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 260.
2 SLP(C) No.990/2022
8. Prima-facie as well, we do not find the petitioner has made out a case. For this reason as well, we are not inclined to pass any interim order in favour of the petitioner. It shall be open to the respondent NDMC to proceed with finalization of the impugned notice dated 23.12.2021 after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the same.
9. The application is dismissed.”
3. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court came before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. We take notice of the order passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court dated 28.02.2022, the same reads thus:-
“The Court is convened through Video Conferencing. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – New Delhi Municipal Council.
Issue notice.
Mr. Yoginder Handoo, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. In the meantime, there shall be stay of further proceedings pursuant to impugned demand.”
5. Thus, it appears that this Court while issuing notice protected the petitioner by staying the further proceedings insofar as the demand raised by the Council is concerned.
6. We heard Mr.C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Yoginder Handoo, the learned 3 SLP(C) No.990/2022 counsel appearing for the New Delhi Municipal Council, and Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, the learned A.S.G. appearing for the respondent no.3, respectively.
7. It appears from the materials on record that this litigation has something to do with Section 63(2) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994.
8. We are informed that there are many petitions of similar nature pending as on date before the Delhi High Court. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan also brought to our notice that the Act, 1994 has recently been amended to the benefit of the property owners in so far as fixation of the tax liability on rental value is concerned.
9. Of course as clarified by the learned counsel appearing for the Council the amendment has not yet come into force.
10. Be that as it may, since the interim order dated 28.02.2022 has been in operation past almost 4 years, there is no point now in adjudicating this petition on merits.
11. Even otherwise, the main matter is coming up on 12.5.2026 before the Delhi High Court.
12. We dispose of this petition with a request to the High Court to take up this petition along with other batch of allied 4 SLP(C) No.990/2022 petitions on 12.5.2026 for final hearing. Till the final disposal of the main matter before the High Court, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to operate.
13. With the aforesaid this petition stands disposed of.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5