1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O.C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2382 OF 2009 Nesco Limited & Anr. ...Petitioner. Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents. ....... Mr.F.E. Devetre, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Narayan Sahu i/b. Federal & Rashmikant for the Petitioner. Ms. T.H. Puranik for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. December 3, 2009. P.C.: The Petition is directed against an order of the Additional Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, dated 27th October 2009 on a computation report under Section 217(2)(d) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. On 28th February 2005, a notice was issued to the Petitioner by which the rateable value of the premises was sought to be revised to Rs. 50.81 lakhs for the period 2004-05. The Petitioner filed a complaint on 11th March 2005 which 2 is decided on 6th November 2008. On 21st November 2008, a Municipal Appeal has been filed against the fixation of the rateable value for 2004-05. Subsequently, on 24th March 2006 and 27th March 2006, notices were issued by which a rateable value of the property was sought to be revised to Rs. 79.07 lakhs with effect from 1st April 2005. Complaint 241/05 has been filed on 5th April 2006 before the Competent Authority. The complaint is still pending and is yet to be disposed of. By the impugned order, the Additional Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes has directed the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3,86,87,146/- on or before 30th November 2009. In the event that any part of the above amount is shown to have been deposited, it has been directed that the same be adjusted against the arrears. The order of the Additional Chief Judge has been passed on a computation report under Section 217(2)(d) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 3 Section 217(2)(d) provides that no appeal against the rateable value or tax fixed or charged shall be entertained by the Chief Judge unless the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the Appellant or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value upto the date of the filing of the appeal has been deposited by the Appellant with the Commissioner. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that the appeal before the Chief Judge of the Small Causes relates only to the period 2004-05. In that view of the matter, the amount required to be deposited under Section 217(2)(d) relates to the amount of the tax claimed or chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value upto the date of the filing of the appeal. Prima facie, on the basis of the statement of computation which is produced before the Additional Chief Judge, a copy whereof is annexed at page 98 of the Paper-Book, it would appear that the liability for the period 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2005 is Rs.57,16,186/-. It would be appropriate however, to direct that the Municipal Corporation shall place before the Additional Chief Judge, within a period of one week from today, the exact 4 amount of tax to be payable for the period 2004-05. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has stated that the Petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the aforesaid amount forthwith and in order to show the bona fides of the Petitioners, they will deposit the amount of Rs. 57.18 lakhs by 5th January 1990. The statement is accepted. In the event that any amount over and above the amount is due and payable for that year, that shall also be deposited by the Petitioners under the provisions of Section 217(2)(d). It is necessary to observe that apart from the provisions of Section 217(2)(d), the Petitioners would also have to deposit the amount due under Section 217(5). The amount which is required to be deposited under Section 217(2)(d) is a condition precedent to the entertainment of the appeal. The amount due under Section 217(5) has to be deposited without which the appeal cannot be heard and decided. It is clarified that the aforesaid direction shall not preclude the Additional Chief Judge from passing appropriate order as regards balance of the amount due and liable to be deposited under Section 5 217(5). The Additional Chief Judge has to issue suitable directions in that regard for filing of a statement by the Municipal Corporation. In order to facilitate the aforesaid exercise being carried out, the parties shall appear before the Additional Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes on 6th January 2010 which the Court is informed, is the next date of hearing. On the aforesaid date, the Learned Trial Judge shall pass suitable orders in the light of the aforesaid directions under the provisions respectively of Sections 217(2)(d) and 217(5) of the Act. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. ....