1 wp9646of2009.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9646 OF 2009 Navprabhat Chambers Premises and ors .... Petitioners. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai ...Respondents Mr. J. S. Deo, for the applicant.. Mr. M.M. Malvankar i/b R.A. Malandkar, for respondent Corporation. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By the impugned order, the Additional Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.67,98,105/- on or before 26th October,2009. It was further directed that in the event of failure on the part of petitioner to deposit the said amount, the petitioners’ appeal will stand dismissed. 2. Proceeding arises out of fixation of ratable value u/s 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short called as “the Act”. The Assessor and Collector of respondent corporation has fixed ratable value in respect of the petitioner’s premises at Rs. 2 wp9646of2009.sxw 26,78,820/- and claimed an amount of Rs.67,98,105/- from the petitioners towards arrears of assessment till the date of lodging appeal. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Small Causes Court, by filing Municipal Appeal (Stamp) No.652 of 2008 and as stated above the learned Judge, directed the petitioners to deposit the entire amount of Rs.67,87,105/- before the next date of hearing. The parties are not disputing that on 22nd December, 2009, the petitioners have deposited 50% of above amount with the respondents. 3. Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the Petitioners, drawn my attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.12046 filed betweenDalamal Tower Premises Co-op Society Ltd and anr -vs- Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and ors, granted leave. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this Special Leave Petition, stayed revised enhanced assessment on condition to deposit 50% difference between assessment and the revised enhanced assessment within a period of 6 weeks. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1800 of 2009 also granted interim stay to the petitioner subject to depositing of 50% of difference between assessment and revised enhanced assessment. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances I dispose of the the petition by passing the following order. 3 wp9646of2009.sxw ORDER. i) The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. ii) The appeal Stamp No.652 of 2008 filed by the petitioner before the Small Causes Court is directed to be registered subject to the petitioners’ undertaking that in case the appeal is dismissed and revised assessment is upheld, the balance amount would be paid with interest at the rate of 6.1/4%. iii) The Principal Assessor and the Collector of the Respondent Corporation, also shall file an undertaking that in case the appeals are allowed and revised assessment is set aside, 50% of the payment made by the petitioners on the basis of revised assessment would be refunded to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 6.1/4%. iv) The petition stands dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)