• 64. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2150/2011 & CM No.4566/2011 (for stay). 65. SMT. SUSHMA CHHABRA ..... Petitioner MCD Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Amita Gupta & Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocates. AND + W.P.(C) 2151/2011 & CM No.4567/2011 (for interim relief). RAJA CHHABRA ..... Petitioner MCD CORAM: Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. · Amita Gupta & Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI END LAW ORDER % 30.03.2011 1. The petitions impugn the order dated 25th February, 2011 in the appeals preferred by the petitioners before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal. The Municipal Taxation Tribunal owing to the amendment w.e.f 1st April, 2004 to Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, requiring the payment of full amount of property tax before filing an appeal, has 11- Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified .. observed that the appeals have not been admitted for hearing as the full amount of property tax demanded had not been paid and dismissed the applications of the petitioners for stay of attachment effected, as not maintainable. 2. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that out of ,. demanded in W.P.(C) No.2150/2011, a sum of approximately stands paid and against the demand of 19,283/- in W.P.(C) No.2151/2011, a sum of approximately stands paid and which have not been considered. The counsel for the petitioners has offered to deposit a sum 5,00,000/- in W.P.(C) No.215112011 within two months of today. 3. This Court in order dated 23rd March, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 66/2011 titled Dayanand Cooperation House Building Society Ltd. v. MCD has directed the Municipal Taxation Tribunal to consider the appeals without payment of the entire tax for the reason of the demand therein being for the period prior to 1st April, 2004, being the date of the amendment of Section 169 of the Act. 4. Following the same order, these writ petitions are also disposed of with the direction to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal to entertain and consider the appeals subject to payment of as aforesaid by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2151/20 11. 21- 5. The appeals be decided on or before 30th August, 2011. In the circumstances, the attachment of rent effect shall remain suspended till then. 6. The petitioners through counsel undertake that they will not sell, alienate or encumber the properties till then and/or till the demand if any remaining is paid. The said undertaking is accepted and petitioners are ordered to be bound by the same. Dasti, under signatures of court master. MARCH 30, 2011 pp .. RAJIV SAHAI END LA W,J 31- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Review Petition No.l08/2012, CM No.2123/2012 (for stay), CM No.2124/2012 (for condonation of delay) & CM No.2125/2012 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) No.66/2011. + + DAYA NAND COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. .. .. Appellant Through: None. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .... Respondent Through: Ms. Am ita Gupta, Adv. AND Review Petition No.l00/2012, CM No.l971/2012 (for stay), CM No.l972/2012 (for condonation of delay) & CM No.l973/2012 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) No.2150/2011. SMT. SUSHMA CHHABRA .... Appellant Through: None. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .... Respondent Through: Ms. Amita Gupta, Adv. AND Review Petition No.78/2012, CM No.1419/2012 (for stay) & CM No.1420/2012 (for condonation of delay) in W.P.(C) No.215112011. RAJA CHHABRA .... Appellant Through: None. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .... Respondent Through: Ms. Amita Gupta, Adv. < ,.. .. • • CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAnV SAHAI END LAW % ORDER 23.03.2012 1. In pursuance to the order dated 17.02.2012, the counsel for the MCD I review applicant informs that the appeals before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal in all the three matters have since been dismissed as withdrawn. 2. The counsel for the MCD I review applicant however contends that notwithstanding the aforesaid, the orders dated 23.03.2011 & 30.03.2011 need to be reviewed as several assessees are using the same as precedent in other cases. 3. Since the appeals qua which the orders dated 23.03.2011 and 30.03.2011 were made stand withdrawn, it is not deemed appropriate to consider the aforesaid submission in these proceedings. It would however be open to the MCD I review applicant to in the proceedings in which the orders dated 23.03.2011 & 30.03.2011 (supra) are relied upon as a precedent, convince the Court/fora otherwise. 4 . With these observations, the review petitions are disposed of. MARCH 23, 2012 'gsr' ..