1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2015
  6. /
  7. January

Surat Municipal Corporation vs Bipinchandra Ishwarlal Chokshi &

High Court Of Gujarat|08 April, 2015
SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION....Appellant(s) Versus BIPINCHANDRA ISHWARLAL CHOKSHI & 1....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance:
MR KI SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR M.B.GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1­2 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Date : 08/04/2015 ORAL ORDER ORDER PASSED IN SECOND APPEAL :
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant - original respondent has challenged the judgement and order dated 26.09.2011 passed in Municipal Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2009 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, by which the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has directed to Municipal Corporation to refund the excess amount collected by way of tax from the appellant along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of collection of such excess amount as well as has challenged the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2011 by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Surat, by which the appeal filed by the present appellant - Corporation has been partly allowed qua the rate of interest, which was awarded by the trial Court i.e. reducing the rate of interest from 15% per annum to 9% per annum.
C/SA/57/2015 ORDER
2. Mr.K.I.Shah, learned advocate for the Corporation has submitted that both the trial Court have erred in directing the Corporation to refund the excess amount collected towards the municipal tax from the opponent. By taking me through the para - 5 of the appeal memo, he would further submit that substantial questions of law are involving in the matter, therefore the appeal be admitted.
3. On the other hand, Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent would submit that there are no concurrent findings of the fact and no substantial questions of law, as stated by the appellant, is involved in the present matter. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed.
4. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties. Perused the judgement and order delivered by both the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. Both the courts have dealt with the size of the property for which municipal tax could have asked for and not the excessive tax, which have collected by the Corporation. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law arise in the matter. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the second appeal. Accordingly the same is disposed of.
1. In view of the order passed in appeal, the present civil application does not survive. Hence, the same is disposed of accordingly.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) *Kazi...
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.