Vasantdada Sahakari Sootgirni v. The State of Maharasthra & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Feb 2005
- Bench
- D G DESHPANDE
Outcome
Dismissed
Appeal is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Without going to the merits of the case as :2: argued by the counsel for the appellants, it is clear that in the written statement stand of the Government was that the demand notice was issued to the plaintiff on the basis of a…
Judgment
Cause title
FIRST APPEAL NO. 12 OF 1995
FIRST APPEAL NO. 12 OF 1995
FIRST APPEAL NO. 12 OF 1995
Vasantdada Sahakari Sootgirni Ltd. Sangli ..Appellants
versus
The State of Maharasthra & Anr. ..Respondents
Mrs. A.R.S. Baxi for the Appellants.
Mr. S. N. Gawade, A.G.P. for the Respondents.
CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.
CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.
CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY,2005 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY,2005 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY,2005
ORAL ORDER :
ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER :
Heard counsel for the Appellants and the AGP for the State - Respondents.
Appellant is the original plaintiffs who had filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration that increase in tax by the Government of the suit property was illegal and against the provisions of law. The suit came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli by Judgment dated 29.9.1994. Hence this appeal.
Without going to the merits of the case as :2: argued by the counsel for the appellants, it is clear that in the written statement stand of the Government was that the demand notice was issued to the plaintiff on the basis of a non agricultural assessment fixed pursuant to the Extra Ordinary Government Notification dated 20.3.1980 at page No.1002. Therefore it is clear that the demand was just in consequence of or effect of the aforesaid notification and what the plaintiff was required to challenge was the said notification. Merely challenging the demand notice would not be sufficient because basis of the demand notice was the aforesaid notification. This aspect was considered by the trial court in paragraph 13 and rightly the suit was dismissed. No interference is called for. Appeal is dismissed. It will be open to the appellants to challenge the said notification by appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs.
17.02.2005
( D. G. DESHPANDE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Feb 2005. The bench was D G DESHPANDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.