Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Ravi Kamal Meattle And Ors. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 7 January, 2002 cites

M.N. Soi vs New Delhi Municipal Committee And Anr. on 30 May, 1975

9. Learned counsel Mr. R.P. Sharma in re- sponse to the objections of the respondent on maintainability of the petitions urged that each assessment year was a separate and independent one and there would be no bar or estoppel on the peti- tioner assailing the assessment orders for subse- quent years in writ petitions. He submitted that effect of withdrawal of an earlier writ petition cannot operate as estoppel or bar to the maintain- ability of writ petitions challenging the assess- ment for subsequent years so long as the assess- ments were vitiated by lack of jurisdiction and were against settled law. He sought to draw support from M.N. Soi v. NDMC reported at ILR 1975(ii) Delhi 765 para 3. to urge that even if the assessed had omitted to rely on the order of a Rent Controller fixing the standard rent in one assessment year, the same did not preclude from questioning the assessment for subsequent years on the same ground. Learned counsel also sought to justify his plea with regard to invalidity of the notice of February 1995, revising the assessment list as being nonest.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Gujarat Agro. Industries Corpo. Ltd vs Municipal Corpo. Of The City Of ... on 17 September, 1980

8. Learned counsel for the respondent therefore relying on the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 158/97 noted above submits that assessments for the subsequent years, which are the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petitions has been done by simply adopting the rateable value as determined by the assessment order dated 9.9.1996. The petitioners having themselves agreed to file appeals after dismissal of their writ petition No. 2184/97 and withdrawal of LPA No. 158/97 cannot now be permitted to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the subse- quent years by assailing the same by way fo these writ petitions and not availing of the appellate remedy. Learned counsel argued that it would be only proper if the challenge to the subsequent assessment orders and proceedings are also decided by the Appellant Authority. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that there was no case made out for infringement of fundamental rights. The assessment has been made on the basis of comparable rent since the rent disclosed by the petitioner was artificially depressed in as much as Rs. 5000/- p.m. was disclosed for property at Aurangzeb Lane, whereas a neighbouring property bearing No. 11A, Prithviraj Road was fetching a rent of Rs. 1,03,500/- p.m. In such circumstances he contended that respondent was justified in assessing the property on comparable rent basis. It was therefore urged that this court should desist from exercising and entertaining the writ petitions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners having withdrawn the challenge to the base assessment year by way of writ petition and the appeal thereto and having agreed to chal- lenge the same before the Appellate Authority cannot be permitted to adopt a different approach in respect of subsequent assessments. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on Gujrat Agro Industries Company Ltd. v. Municipal Corpo- ration of City of Ahmedabad and Ors. reported at JT 1999 (3) 259, wherein the court rejected the argument that simply because the onerous condi- tion for deposit of tax was there, the right to appeal has become illusory.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - G T Nanavati - Full Document
1