9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to an order made under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 507 and the authority of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes. 3. Proper parties to be involved in a petition challenging a Tribunal's order. 4. Determination of costs for the parties involved in the petition and cross-objections. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned the challenge to an order made by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioners sought a writ of 'certiorari' against the order, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, leading to the appeal. 2. The interpretation of Section 507 and the authority vested in the Chief Judge were central to the case. The petitioners, as property owners, were required by the Municipality to carry out repairs on their property. The Chief Judge's order directed the tenants to provide facilities to the landlords for repairs based on an architect's report. The petitioners argued that the order compelled them to incur extra expenses and interfered with their repair decisions. However, the Court found that the Chief Judge acted within his jurisdiction as the order was based on the architect's report and aimed at ensuring reasonable facilities for repairs. 3. The Court addressed the issue of proper parties in a petition challenging a Tribunal's order. It was established that both the Tribunal and all parties affected by the order should be necessary parties to the petition. Failure to include all relevant parties could affect the outcome of the case and the determination of costs. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring all affected parties are included in such petitions. 4. The judgment also delved into the determination of costs for the parties involved in the petition and cross-objections. The Court laid down a practice that Tribunals should not appear in court merely to submit to orders unless contesting the petition. The Tribunal's appearance should not automatically warrant costs unless it actively contests the petition. The Court clarified the approach to be taken regarding costs for Tribunals in such cases. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, with the appellants directed to pay the costs of respondents 2 to 26. Respondent No. 1 was to bear their own costs of the appeal, and the cross-objections were also dismissed with no specific order as to costs. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, the involvement of parties in challenging Tribunal orders, and the determination of costs in such cases.
|
