MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. CHOICE CONTAINERS HINDENDRANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil application the applicant-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation prayed for condonation of delay of 53 days in preferring the fist appeal against the order passed by the Chief Judge Small Causes Court Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 3755 of 1988 on 23 March 1990 whereby the appeal is allowed and the Gross rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation Ahmedabad for the yeas 1986 and 1987-88 for the premises bearing M.C. No. 672/20/20 of Naroda A ward is quashed and bill bearing No. 3004 dt. 27th March 1987 for appeal premises is also quashed and held to be inoperative. The excess of tax if recovered was also ordered to be refunded to the applicant herein with 18% interest from the date of deposit within four months etc.

(2.) In the instance case. the Rule was issued and was made returnable on 20th January 1992 and notice of Rule was served upon the respondent herein and the respondent appeared through its learned advocate Mr. Modi. The Court directed the learned advocate for the applicant Corporation to file detailed affidavit explaining reasons for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly the affidavit on behalf of the applicant-Corporation is filed by Shri Nathusingh Vaghela Deputy Assessor and Tax Collector of the Municipal Corporation on 19th December 1992 and the copy whereof was also served upon Mr. Modi the learned advocate for the respondent and Shri Arvindbhai J. Patel-Partner of the respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply on 28th December 1992

(3.) The learned advocate for the respondent took serious objections against condoning the delay on the ground that the applicant-Corporation has failed to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Thus this application came to be heard on 28th December 1992 and Mr. Modi the learned advocate for the respondent has again taken the same objection seriously contending inter alia that the deponent is not the competent authority to file this affidavit and the deponent has not fully explained the reasons of delay in filing the appeal.