9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code, for early hearing of the abovementioned two I.As. In consequence of this application, arguments were heard on July 15, 1987, and the same are proposed to be disposed of by this order. These I.As have been filed in Suit No. 2684 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff, M/s. Asian Hotel Limited, against M.C.D. and another for grant of a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of tax in the sum of Rs. 3,09,23,454 from the plaintiff in pursuance of order dated December 11, 1986, and demand notice dated December 16, 1986, for the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 in respect of 1, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, under coercive measures or otherwise. The said suit is being contested by the defendants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the following findings: To be entitled the ad interim injunction prayed for, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish that the plaintiff has got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in the grant of ad interim injunction prayed for, for, otherwise, irreparabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 1985-86 is the subject-matter of a dispute before the civil courts. It is also further contended on behalf of the plaintiff that even though the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 22,45,495 in accordance with annexure XIII for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86 to the defendant, no credit or rebate has been given for those payments as a perusal of annexure XIV would show and rather the entire demand of Rs. 3,12,49,551 is sought to be enforced illegally against the plaintiff by the defendant. Once it is admitted by the defendant that the amounts as directed by various courts have in fact been deposited by the plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the defendant to give rebate for those payments. It has also been submitted that in pursuance of orders dated December 29, 1986, by this court, another sum of Rs. 3-5 lakhs has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant which fact is also not disputed by the defendant and this makes a total of Rs. 57,50 lakhs which has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and the plaintiff was entitled to a rebate to that extent. Further contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has even been precluded by the Assessor C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lopment Authority (for short " D.D.A. ") one plot of land now known as 1, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, on payment of Rs. 4,36,00,000 for construction of a five star hotel on the said plot as per plans sanctioned by the D.D.A. and the possession of the said plot was handed over to the plaintiff on January 21, 1981, and the plaintiff started construction upon it in the same year and the perpetual lease deed was executed between the plaintiff and the D.D.A. on July 22, 1982. In pursuance of a notice issued under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (For short " D.M.C. Act "), defendant No. 1 assessed the plot with effect from March 21, 1981 to land tax/property tax at an annual value of Rs. 25,00,000 which was later on raised to Rs. 28,99,400 with effect from April 1, 1981, and this assessment was continued for the years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, but on March 16, 1984, the defendant MCD sent a notice under section 126 of the DMC Act proposing to revise the said rateable value for purposes of property tax from Rs. 28,99,400 to Rs. 11,36,84,040 with effect from April 1, 1983, on the ground of construction of a hotel building and in spite of objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and whether that violation would enable the defendant to revise the assessment. Yet another question which would have to be considered is the mode of calculating the cost of a room and then multiplying the cost of one room by the entire area of the hotel. All these questions go to suggest that there are bona fide contentions between the parties which raise serious and substantial questions to be tried and decided. In the face of such a situation, it can be concluded that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case existing in his favour for grant of an ad interim injunction prayed for. Coming to the question of balance of convenience, it need be observed that once a prima facie case is established to exist in favour of the plaintiff, the balance of convenience would ordinarily lie in the grant of an ad interim injunction rather than in the refusal thereof, otherwise the chances are that the substantial mischief, damage and injury that are likely to done to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused would be much more than what is likely to be caused if the injunction is granted and more so when sufficient part of the demand of the defendants have already been got paid under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
