RITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — WP/2631/2023

Case under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: HCBM020197772023

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

WP/19769/2023

Filing Date

19-07-2023

Registration No

WP/2631/2023

Registration Date

01-09-2023

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI , HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI , HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Acts & Sections

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

RITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

Adv. VIDHII PARTNERS

GUMPHA DARSHAN (A AND B) CHSL

Respondent(s)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

Adv. BMC

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

Adv. BMC

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI , HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA

06-09-2023

FOR CIRCULATION

21-08-2023

FOR CIRCULATION

06-09-2023

FOR CIRCULATION

05-05-2026

-FOR DIRECTIONS

30-04-2026

FOR DIRECTION

Orders

05-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA

The Bombay High Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim relief. The court noted that the BMC's Assistant Assessor had three times changed the outstanding property tax amount within two months (Rs.18,70,424; Rs.26,27,601; Rs.35,54,816), finding prima facie that the officer lacked clarity on the amount due or was harassing the petitioner. The petition raises arguable questions warranting relief under prayer clauses (f) and (g). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim relief. The court noted that the BMC's Assistant Assessor had three times changed the outstanding property tax amount within two months (Rs.18,70,424; Rs.26,27,601; Rs.35,54,816), finding prima facie that the officer lacked clarity on the amount due or was harassing the petitioner. The petition raises arguable questions warranting relief under prayer clauses (f) and (g). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case