Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 307 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
He further
submitted Asian Leather Ltd. was not good law since the court by that judgment
had relied on the decision reported in AIR 1959 SC 135 (Sales Tax Officer,
Benaras Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Mukund Lal Saraf) which was held to have been
wrongly decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1997
(89) E.L.T. 247 (SC) (Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India).
Asian Leather Limited And Anr. vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors. on 14 May, 2007
Secondly, the said decision was rendered
upon the petitioners therein having placed strong reliance on the decision reported
in 2007 (3) CHN 476 (Asian Leather Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and Ors.). He submitted the position in law laid down by Asian
Leather Ltd. was regarding the right or authority of the Corporation to realize
drainage development fees as pre-condition to sanction a building plan which was
not the question for consideration in the present case since admittedly the
petitioners had paid the drainage development fees demanded of them.
Section 393 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Sales Tax Officer, Banaras & Others vs Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf on 23 September, 1958
He further
submitted Asian Leather Ltd. was not good law since the court by that judgment
had relied on the decision reported in AIR 1959 SC 135 (Sales Tax Officer,
Benaras Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Mukund Lal Saraf) which was held to have been
wrongly decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1997
(89) E.L.T. 247 (SC) (Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India).
Bodhi Art Limited & Anr vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 16 April, 2010
Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners
relied upon an unreported judgment dated 16th April, 2010 (Bodhi Art Limited &
Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.) made by a Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court by which on the basis of information given on behalf of the
Corporation that till date no regulation in term of Section 289 of the Kolkata
Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 had been made authorizing it to recover expenses
made by it for having a private house-drain made to communicate with municipal
drain as is in or under a public street, held the Corporation had acted without
jurisdiction in making the demand impugned therein. He further submitted the
Corporation in its affidavit-in-opposition relied only on an amendment having been
made to Section 393 of the said Act regarding imposition of drainage development
fees. He submitted the Corporation having already had demanded and collected
drainage development fees from the petitioners, the question for adjudication was
whether the Corporation had the power to realize the costs of constructing a drain
outside the premises of the petitioners as empowered by any regulation made under
Section 289 of the said Act.
1