TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the order made under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was within jurisdiction and properly required the occupiers to afford reasonable facilities to the owners for carrying out the municipal requisition. (ii) Whether, in a writ petition challenging an order of a Tribunal, the Tribunal is a necessary party and what the proper practice is regarding costs when the Tribunal appears only to submit to the Court's orders.
Issue (i): Whether the order made under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was within jurisdiction and properly required the occupiers to afford reasonable facilities to the owners for carrying out the municipal requisition.
Analysis: The order was made on the basis of an architect's report obtained with the consent of the parties, and the suggested phased repair programme was treated as the foundation of the direction. The provision empowered the Chief Judge to require occupiers to afford reasonable facilities to the owner for compliance with the municipal requisition, and the Court held that reasonable facilities could be assessed with reference to the convenience of the tenants. Repairing the rear portion first, and the front portion later when temporary vacation would be necessary, was therefore capable of falling within the ambit of the section.
Conclusion: The order was held to be within jurisdiction and the challenge on this ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether, in a writ petition challenging an order of a Tribunal, the Tribunal is a necessary party and what the proper practice is regarding costs when the Tribunal appears only to submit to the Court's orders.
Analysis: The Court laid down that a Tribunal whose order is sought to be quashed is ordinarily a necessary party, and all persons affected by the order should also be joined. It further explained that while a Tribunal may appear to contest a petition in appropriate cases, it should not ordinarily appear merely to submit to the Court's orders, and if it does so it should usually do so at its own cost. As the practice position was not yet settled, the Court declined to interfere with the limited costs order made below.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was treated as a necessary party in principle, but the existing costs order was left undisturbed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits, and the Court also clarified the practice governing the participation and costs of tribunals in writ proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 507 is valid if it requires only such facilities as are reasonable in the circumstances, and a tribunal whose order is challenged is ordinarily a necessary party to the writ proceeding.
TaxTMI 
