1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.525/2010 The City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Civil Lines, Nagpur and others ...Versus... M/s Kanan Enterprises through its Proprietor Shri Manish s/o Dayha Bhai Desai Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri J.B. Kasat, Adv. for appellants] [Shri G.S. Shukla, Adv. for respondent] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 20.04.2011. Heard. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the difference of price per carton was around Rs.74/- which was the correct value of the goods particularly inside the Octroi limits. As against, the incorrect valuation is shown at Rs.1019.32 paise per carton. According to him, therefore, there is a clear violation of the relevant Rules relating to Octroi and the Corporation was entitled to slap penalty plus interest. He further argued that the Courts below have entered into appreciation of evidence in a perverse manner and therefore, substantial question of law arises as to whether the Courts below have appreciated the evidence perversely. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact contrary what the learned Counsel for appellants has argued. He 2 thus argued that the concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the present second appeal. There is no perversity according to the learned Counsel for the respondent. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, at the outset, I find that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court have recorded a categorical finding based on record and the documents that the respondent was perforce asked to submit the second declaration with higher price of the carton. That finding of fact is based on evidence and I do not think that the same can be termed as perverse. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is based on evidence and in view of the fact that the difference of price that was involved was of around Rs.74/- per carton for only 109 cartons with a small trader like the respondent, it would not be fit to entertain the present second appeal in the interest of justice. At any rate, as earlier stated, there is no perversity on the part of the Courts below in the matter of appreciation of evidence. In the result, I find no merit in the present second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw