REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, SARDHANA, MEERUT Appellant

V/S

CHANDRA PRAKASH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

UNITED TOWN ELECTRIC CO. LTD.,V. A.G. FOR NEWFOUNDLAND. [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR MAHAPALIKA OF THE CITY OF KANPUR V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER. ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
GODRAJ DHARJI SHAH GANDHI V. MUNICIPAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD,MUZAFFANAGAR V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. MUZAFFANAGAR AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA,ALIGARH V. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. ALI GULSHAN [REFERRED TO]
KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL KOCHUNI MOOPIL NAYAR RAVUNNIARATH UNNIMALU AMMA DEVAKI AMMA RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON K C GOPALAN UNNI THATHUNNI NAIR MANNARGHAT MOOPIL NAIR VS. STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATE OF MADRAS:STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BHANU PRATAP SINGH VS. ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN E P BAHRAICH [REFERRED TO]
INDRAMANI PYARELAL GUPTA VS. W R NATU [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD IN ALL AAPEALS VS. BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. KAJARIA TRADERS INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD DAWAKHANA WAKF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUBAN PARKASH NAYYAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY VS. COLLECTOR OF EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. HARI SHANKAR JAIN [REFERRED TO]
SIDDESHWARI COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUNTUR VS. RAMDEV TOBACCO COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
G CLARIDGE AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE [REFERRED TO]
K VEERASWAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. M K GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. EAST INDIA HOTELS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
H R ADYANTHAYA OTHERS VS. SANDOZ INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
DIPALI KATIA CHADHA MANORANJAN TANIA CHADHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HOUSING BOARD HARYANA VS. HARYANA HOUSING BOARD EMPLOYEES UNION [REFERRED TO]
G RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY COMPANY VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER IVB VIJAYAWADA [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUCKNOW VS. U P FOREST CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KEMPAIAH [REFERRED TO]
LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS PVT LIMITED VS. SHANKARPRASAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The moot point involved in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the annual value for the purposes of assessment of municipal taxes of premises No. 193. Gandhi Nagar. Sardhana in district Meerut owned by respondent No. 1 and under the tenancy of the State Bank of India is to be determined under the provisions of clause (a) or (b) of Section 140 (1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This controversy has come up in the wake of the following facts.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the building in question of which the respondent No. 1 is the owner is under the tenancy of the State Bank of India. Sardhana Branch at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,100. The annual rental value for the purposes of payment of municipal taxes has been assessed at Rs. 85,200 = (Rs. 7100 x 12). The total amount of the house tax calculated at the rate of the annual rent and the water tax comes to Rs. 8,520 on each of the two counts. It is alleged that the annual rental value was finalised after due service of the notices on respondent No. 1 but he failed to enter any response. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal under Section 160 of the Act. This appeal was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, by order dated 4.6.1999 with the direction that the assessment of the annual rental value shall be determined with reference to the provisions of Section 140 (1) (a) of the Act and not under clause (b). It is against this order that the Nagar Palika Parlshad, Sardhana, has come before this Court by filing the writ petition with the prayer that the impugned order dated 4.6.1999 directing the petitioner to calculate the assessment under Section 140 (1) (a) of the Act passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, Annexure-5 to the petition be quashed.

(3.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.

Click here to view full judgment.

NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD SARDHANA MEERUT Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address