Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DAILYLAW 3193 (BOM)

MUMBAI CRICKET ASSOCIATION v. BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA AND ANR.

FA/247/2018 · 2026-02-17

Shri Jitendra Shantilal Jain

body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HMK 1 18. FA-247-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2018 Mumbai Cricket Association, Through Its Secretary, Dr. Unmesh D. Khanvilkar ….Appellant Versus Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Anr. .…Respondents __________________________________________________________________ Mr. Shailesh Salvi i/by Warekar & Warekar for the Appellant. Mr. Pradeep M. Patil for Respondent-MCGM. __________________________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026 P. C. : 1. Admit. By consent, taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. The present Appeal is filed to challenged the order in Municipal Appeal No. 245 of 2012 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai on 12th December, 2017, whereby, Appeal came to be dismissed. 3. The Small Causes Court in paragraph 5 has framed and answered following issues :- Sr. No. Points Findings 1 Whether amounts of General Tax, Education Cess, Street Tax, Sewerage Tax, State Education Cess and employment guarantee cess charged in property tax bill for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 are No SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Digitally signed by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date: 2026.02.18 11:18:10 +0530 HMK 2 18. FA-247-2018.doc unlawfully charged as regards to the appeal premises needs interference ? 2 Whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as claimed ? No 3 What order ? Appeal is dismissed 4. The first point which is framed is whether the amounts of the taxes and cess referred to therein are unlawfully charged for the period from 01st April, 2011 to 31st March, 2012. 5. On a perusal of the reasons given by the Small Causes Court, there does not appear to be any discussion or reasoning as to why the items specified in issue no.1 are lawfully charged or not. There is a general discussion about reasonable rent, but there is no discussion on whether these items are required to be charged or not. 6. In view of above, the matter is remanded back to the Small Causes Court to consider and after hearing the parties on issue no.1 to give its findings by a speaking order. Parties to appear before the Small Causes Court on 23rd March, 2026 at 11.00 a.m, so that the Small Causes Court can fix up a date for further hearing. 7. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]