BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA & ANR.versusAKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR.

                              [2008) 1S.C.R.1118


              BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA & ANR.                      A
                                       v
                      AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 620 of 2008)
                             JANUARY 23, 2008
                                                                         B
             [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

               Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - s. 217 - First
          appeal - Allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: Order of
          High Court was non-reasoned - Such disposal of first appeal    c
          is not permissible - Hence matter remitted to High Court.
                Appellant refused to entertain the complaint of the
          respondents and to confirm rateable value. Respondent
          filed appeal uls 217 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,
          1888. The appeal was allowed by High Court.               D
    ,:.
              In appeal to this court, appellant questioned the
          judgment of High Court on the ground that it was non-
          reasoned.
              Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High E
          Court, the Court
               HELD: Various contentious pleas were raised in the
          appeal under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
          The High Court ought to have analysed the factual position
'   ...   in the background of principles of law involved and then F
          to decide the appeal. That has not been done. After making
          detailed reference to the arguments and contentions
          raised, abrupt conclusions were arrived at by the High
          Court. That is not a proper way to dispose of the first
          appeal. Hence the matter is remitted to High Court for G
    -~    fresh consideration on merit in accordance with law.
    '     [Paras 5, 6 and 7] [1119-G, H; 1120-A-B]
               CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 620
          of 2008.
                                 1118                            H
    1119       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A        From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.4.2005 of
    the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 1095
                                                                         ...
    of 2000.
         Shweta Mazmudar, Atul Y. Chitale and Mrs. Suchitra Atul
    Chitale for the Appellants.
B
        lndu Malhotra, Shashi M. Kapila and Vikas Mehta for the
    Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c          Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
  learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the
  appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal was filed !Jy the
  respondents challenging the order passed by learned Additional
D Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31.3.2000 in
  Municipal Appeal No. 19 of 2000 under Section 217 of the
  Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short the 'Act'). In
  the appeal, the order of assessment passed by the present
  appellants was under challenge. The order of the appellants
E related to refusal to entertain the complaint of the respondents
  and confirmation of rateable value.
        3. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal,
  the main plank of the argument of learned counsel for the
  appellants was that the High Court has not applied its mind to
F various points urged and after noting the submissions came to                    ,
                                                                           •
  abrupt conclusions. In other words it is submitted the judgment
  is practically non-reasoned.
       4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
G said that though elaborate analysis have not been made, yet
  the conclusions have been arrived at after noting the                    ,,_
  submissions.                                                                 •
        5. It is to be noted that various contentious pleas were
  raised in the appeal. The High Court ought to have analysed
H the factual position in the background of principles of law involved
   BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA&ANR. v.                    1120
    AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR. [PASAYAT, J.]

and then to decide the appeal. That has not been done.               A
      6. It is to be noted that after making detailed reference to
the arguments and contentions raised, abrupt conclusions were
arrived at by the High Court. That is not a proper way to dispose
of the first appeal.
                                                                     8
     7. In the circumstances without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case.we set aside the impugned judgment of
the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration
on merit in accordance with law.
     8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without C
any order as to costs.
K.K.T.                                          Appeal allowed.