Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. BHAGEERATHA DEVELOPERS LTD. versus CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. BHAGEERATHA DEVELOPERS LTD. v. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - WP(C) No. 2684 of 2007(T) [2007] RD-KL 1809 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2684 of 2007(T)

1. M/S. BHAGEERATHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :23/01/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 2684 of 2007 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon the learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent Corporation. Sri.Manu V., the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the apartments in question were actually constructed by the petitioner company, but it is seen that the assessment has been made in the name of the company by name Bhageeratha Constructions. According to Mr.Manu, there is no company by name Bhageeratha Constructions. The petitioner company came to know about the assessment order only when one of the Directors of the petitioner company was served with Ext.P2 demand notice. According to Sri.Manu it was the petitioner company who constructed the apartment and later the ownership over the apartment was transferred to the purchasers and the Corporation is not justified in making the demands on the directions of the petitioner company. WPC No.2684/2007 2

2. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition will not be maintainable in law. The Corporation is not aware of any transfer of the apartments. No notice under Section 240 has been served regarding the alleged transfer by the petitioner or by anybody. The counsel further submitted that the aggrieved party will have to pursue his statutory appellate remedies before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.

3. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner company should be directed to prefer an appeal against the assessment order. Going by the statute under Section 509 (2) of the Municipality Act to maintain any appeal it is obligatory that tax under demand is remitted in full. From Ext.P2 it it seen that tax under demand is Rs.12,03,889/-. Considering the special circumstances, which attend on this cases, the petitioner company is permitted to prefer an appeal under Section 509 (2) by remitting 50% of the above amount. If the petitioner company remits 50% of the tax amount of Rs.12,03,889/- within three weeks from today, and simultaneously prefers an appeal to the Standing Committee (Taxes) of the respondent Corporation, the Standing Committee WPC No.2684/2007 3 will entertain that appeal as one regularly filed on time and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law at the earliest. Till the disposal of the prospective appeal, no coercive steps will be initiated by the respondent against the petitioner or any of the Directors of the petitioner company. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge dpk


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.