2011 (9) TMI 1044 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Confined relief sought by respondents before High Court, quashing of demand notices, refund of amounts realized, pursuit of other reliefs.

SLP (C) No. 16197/2011:
In this case, during the hearing, the senior advocate for the respondents, Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, stated that they would confine their relief before the High Court to canceling and withdrawing the impugned demand contained in specific letters. The judgment of the Bombay High Court was clarified to remain limited to the prayer made on behalf of certain writ petitioners only. Other members of the Chamber were allowed to seek their respective reliefs as per the law. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.

SLP (C) No. 16713 of 2011:
During the hearing, the senior advocate for the respondents, Novel Properties Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the relief claimed would be confined to quashing a specific demand notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. It was clarified that the High Court judgment would remain limited to the quashing of the demand related to assignments made in favor of the respondents. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.

SLP (C) No. 16636 of 2011:
In this case, the senior advocate for the respondents stated that the demand would remain confined to a specific clause in the letter. The High Court judgment was clarified to be limited to quashing the mentioned demand letter. If payments had been realized based on the now-quashed demand notices, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was directed to refund the amounts without delay. The respondents were allowed to pursue their other reliefs before the Corporation as per the law. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.

SLP (C) No. 16709 of 2011:
The advocate for the respondent in this case stated that the demand would be confined to a specific prayer clause seeking to quash a particular order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Estate. It was clarified that the High Court judgment would remain limited to quashing the mentioned demand order. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.