Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BRIHANUMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA & ANR. versus AKUTI NIRMAN PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Decided
23 January 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1118 · 2008 INSC 90
Also cited as
  • (2008) 3 SCC 78 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 1119, margin C

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal was filed !Jy the respondents challenging the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31.3.2000 in Municipal Appeal No. 19 of 2000 under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short the 'Act'). In the appeal, the order of assessment passed by the present appellants was under challenge. The order of the appellants related to refusal to entertain the complaint of the respondents and confirmation of rateable value.

p. 1119, margin C

3

Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the main plank of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants was that the High Court has not applied its mind to various points urged and after noting the submissions came to abrupt conclusions. In other words it is submitted the judgment is practically non-reasoned.

p. 1119, margin E

4

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand said that though elaborate analysis have not been made, yet the conclusions have been arrived at after noting the submissions.

p. 1119, margin F

5

It is to be noted that various contentious pleas were raised in the appeal. The High Court ought to have analysed the factual position in the background of principles of law involved and then to decide the appeal. That has not been done. A

pp. 1119–1120, margin G

6

It is to be noted that after making detailed reference to the arguments and contentions raised, abrupt conclusions were arrived at by the High Court. That is not a proper way to dispose of the first appeal.

p. 1120

7

In the circumstances without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration on merit in accordance with law.

p. 1120

8

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without C any order as to costs. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

p. 1120