Suit R.C.S. No. 26 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
notice dated 21.06.2021. By this notice a demand has been
raised by the Municipal Corporation for a sum of Rs. 7,57,203/-
seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred in cleaning the
nallah on the basis that it was obligation of the petitioner to
clean the nala, and as the obligation was not complied by the
petitioner, the said work was undertaken by the Municipal
Corporation.{Para 6}
7. It is clear that although one of grounds of challenge is to
the obligation of the Municipal Corporation by relying upon the
provisions of the Corporation Act, what has been challenged in
effect is a demand notice which has been issued by the Municipal
Corporation seeking to recover the amount. In my view, the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as
regards the authority of the corporation and on the lease deed
are in fact grounds in support of the challenge to the demand
notice. The subject matter of the suit has been valued at Rs.
1,000/- on the ground that the petitioner is claiming declaration
and the notice is not susceptible to the monetary valuation and
as such has been valued under Section 6(iv)(a) of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act. In my view since the demand
notice which is under challenge seeks to recover a monetary
component, it cannot be said that notice is not susceptible to
monetary valuation as submitted.
10. In my view, the Petitioner seeks adjudication of demand
notice seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 7,57,203/ which is capable
of monetary valuation and hence the impugned order directing
to value the suit as per the provisions of Section 6(iv)(a) of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act is proper and deserves no
interference at the hands of this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3692 OF 2022
The Aurangabad Jilha Chemists and Druggists Association Vs
The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2023.
Citation: 2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 13.
. Heard.
2. The petition challenges the order dated 11th November,
2021, passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No. 26 of 2021,
whereby the petitioner was directed to value the suit as per
Section 6(iv)(a) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act on or before
next date and pay proper court fees.
3. R.C.S. No. 26 of 2021 was instituted by the petitioner
challenging the notice dated 21.06.2021 issued by the Municipal
Corporation Aurangabad raising a demand of Rs. 7,57,203/- upon
the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner in the suit that by a
registered lease deed executed between the parties the nallah
belt was given on lease and construction over nallah belt was
undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to the development
permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. It is also the
case in the suit that as per the agreement between the parties,
the respondent is under obligation to clean the nala which is
flowing below the building and not entire stretch and the
expense of Rs 7,57,203/ which is sought to be claimed shows that
the liability of cleaning the entire stretch of nallah is sought to be
foisted on the Petitioner. The challenge to the notice is on an
additional ground that as per the provisions the Section 153 of
the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (for short
“Corporation Act”), it is the duty of the Municipal Corporation to
clean the nala and the demand raised by the notice dated
21.06.2021 is illegal and without authority of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit
has been correctly valued U/Sec. 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act as the suit was for declaration and the subject
matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary valuation and
has accordingly paid the court fees. He would further submit
that, it is clear from the prayers in the plaint that the petitioner
seeks a declaration about the duty of the Municipal Corporation
to clean the entire nala. He would further submit that although
the demand notice makes a mention of amount of Rs. 7,57,203/-,
the challenge is on jurisdictional issue. In support of his
contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon following
decisions of this Court.
I. Vrindavan (borivali) Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Vs. Karmarkar Bros. and others reported in 1982 Mh.L.J
607.
II. Rajaram Bhagwati Tiwari and others Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and others reported in
2004(3) Mh.L.J. 290.
III. Maria Philomina Pereira Vs. M/s Rodrigues Construction
reported in 1990(1) Mh. L. J. 445.
5. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner.
6. Suit R.C.S. No. 26 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
notice dated 21.06.2021. By this notice a demand has been
raised by the Municipal Corporation for a sum of Rs. 7,57,203/-
seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred in cleaning the
nallah on the basis that it was obligation of the petitioner to
clean the nala, and as the obligation was not complied by the
petitioner, the said work was undertaken by the Municipal
Corporation.
7. It is clear that although one of grounds of challenge is to
the obligation of the Municipal Corporation by relying upon the
provisions of the Corporation Act, what has been challenged in
effect is a demand notice which has been issued by the Municipal
Corporation seeking to recover the amount. In my view, the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as
regards the authority of the corporation and on the lease deed
are in fact grounds in support of the challenge to the demand
notice. The subject matter of the suit has been valued at Rs.
1,000/- on the ground that the petitioner is claiming declaration
and the notice is not susceptible to the monetary valuation and
as such has been valued under Section 6(iv)(a) of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act. In my view since the demand
notice which is under challenge seeks to recover a monetary
component, it cannot be said that notice is not susceptible to
monetary valuation as submitted.
8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the decision of Rajaram Bhagwati
Tiwari and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay and others (supra) and invited attention of this Court to
paragraph No. 11. In the said decision this Court has held that
Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act is in a sense a
residuary section which seeks to carve out an exception to the
general rule, which is laid down U/Sec. 6(iv)(d). In my opinion,
the said decision does not assist the case of the petitioner for the
reason that the same applies to the subject matter which is not
susceptible to monetary valuation.
9. So far as decision in the case of Vrindavan (Borivali) Cooperative
Housing Society Limited Vs. Karmarkar Bros. and
others (supra) is concerned, the said decision has been rendered
in the facts of that case, where the relief was sought as to the
declaration that plaintiffs-society is a co-operative housing
society is in possession of the said building known as ‘Umanagar’
situated at Boriwali (East) and thereafter the consequential
relief of declaration was sought. The observation of this Court in
the facts of that case were that suit was not simplicitor for
specific performance but it was a suit to enforce the compliance
with the statute. In my view in the present case the suit
specifically challenges the demand notice raised by the Municipal
Corporation seeking to recover Rs. 7,57,203/- and as such it
cannot be said that the suit is only for the compliance of the
provisions of the Corporation Act. In the present case it is only a
ground in support of challenge raised to the demand notice. In so
far as decision in the case of Maria Philomina Pereira Vs. M/s
Rodrigues Construction (supra) is concerned, said decision arises
in the context of Section 6(xi) of the Bombay Court Fees Act
pertaining to the compliance of a statutory obligation. As
already observed above, in the present case, it is not merely a
compliance of statutory obligation which is sought by way of suit
but a specific challenge to the demand notice.
10. In my view, the Petitioner seeks adjudication of demand
notice seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 7,57,203/ which is capable
of monetary valuation and hence the impugned order directing
to value the suit as per the provisions of Section 6(iv)(a) of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act is proper and deserves no
interference at the hands of this Court.
11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and same is
accordingly dismissed.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment