The stated business was located at Volga House, 1C, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bombay400034, hereinafter referred to as the said premises.
Thus, the aggregate demand was for Rs.10,60,312/ Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Only , against respondent No.1.
Later on, the appellant informed respondent No.1 vide letter dated 27 th January, 1992, that his water companynection will be cut off as requested by the companypany.
The respondent No.1 in turn requested the appellant to accept the deposit amount in installments of Rs.5,000/ Rupees Five Thousand Only , which request was declined by the appellant.
That was finally done on 25 th October, 1993.
Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.1206 of 1999 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to quash set aside the bills and demand raised by the appellant and the Warrant of Attachment dated 5 th August, 1998 for recovery of the amount.
Besides, a new water meter came to be installed on 15th October, 1987.
Accordingly, respondent No.1 wrote to the appellant vide letter dated 10th December, 1993 that since the water companynection to the premises has been disrupted cut off by the Water Department and he having paid all the dues until then amounting to Rs.46,794/ Rupees Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Four Only , the appellant ought to install a new water meter.
Since then, respondent No.1 is dependent on water supply by private water tankers.
Resultantly, on 5th August, 1998, the appellant issued Warrant of Attachment and levied an attachment upon the said premises and building for the arrears of stated tax being property tax amounting to Rs.9,11,708/ Rupees Nine Lakh Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Eight Only and further penalty of Rs.1,48,503/ Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Three Only .
The respondent No.2 is the landlord of respondent No.1 in respect of the said premises.
Further, vide letter dated 18 th November, 1999, issued by the Legal Department of the appellant, respondents were informed that if the arrears of taxes were number paid, the appellant would proceed to advertise the public auction relating to premises occupied by respondent No.1.
In January, 1997, seven bills of water tax and water benefit tax were raised in respect of the said building for the period from 1 st October, 1993 to 30th September, 1998 aggregating to Rs.10,60,312/ Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Only .
Therefore, there was numberwater companynection meter in the premises of respondent No.1 since 25th October, 1993.
The respondent No.3 paid his share of the bill in protest but respondent No.1, on advice, refused to pay his prorata share of the bill.
However, respondent No.1 did number pay the said amount on the ground of financial crisis because of closure of the factory.
The respondent No.3 is the tenant of respondent No.2 in respect of the remainder area of the said building other than the area in possession of respondent No.1.
Upon receipt of this companymunication, the appellant demanded a deposit of Rs.72,000/ Rupees Seventy Two Thousand Only for processing the request for a new water meter.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 wrote to the appellant on 2nd February, 1987 and 15th October, 1987, requesting to discontinue the water quota allotted and then charge them on actual companysumption basis, as they did number require the large quantity of water any more due to shut down of the production.
The appellant thereafter in 1997 started raising bills for the period from 1st October, 1993 including towards water benefit tax in respect of the subject premises.
On 29th October, 1983, an illegal strike call was given by the workmen in the factory of respondent No.1, due to which the production work in the factory was suspended by the management.
The respondent No.1s firm required 10 lakh gallons of water for its frozen food and ice cream business, which was being supplied by the appellant under the fixed quota of 10 lakh gallons of water till October, 1983.
The appellant is a companyporate body companystituted under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for short, 1888 Act or the Act and respondent No.1 is a sole proprietor in the business, which was carried on by him in the name and style of Volga Frozen Foods and Ice Cream Company, hereinafter referred to as the said firm.
M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1206 of 1999, whereby the bills demand raised by appellant including towards water benefit tax and the Warrant of Attachment in respect of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by stated premises belonging to the respondents came to be DEEPAK SINGH Date 2019.10.22 182052 IST Reason quashed and set aside being illegal.
