JINDAL PLY FILMS LTD vs NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR. COMMISSIONER

Judgment text excerpt

-WP-1325-2022-.DOC Arun Sankpal IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2022 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. A Limited Company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956 having office at B-102, Poonam Chambers, Worli, Mumbai ..Petitioner Versus Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner having office address at 1st Floor, Belapur Bhawan, CBD, …Respondent Navi Mumbai 400 614. Mr. Amrut Joshi, i/b Mr. Tejas S. Mahamuni, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandip D. Ghaterao, for the Respondent. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 15th APRIL 2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 9th JUNE 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL counsel for the parties, heard finally. Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.06.09 17:26:12 +0530 3. The Petitioner takes exception to an order dated 27 th April 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, on an Application for production of additional evidence, in Municipal Appeal 1/18 -WP-1325-2022-.DOC No. 16 of 2004 (Exhibit “48”), whereby the said Application preferred by the Petitioner came to be rejected holding, inter alia, that the Petitioner- Appellant failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“the Code”) for grant of permission to lead additional evidence. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Petition can be stated as under: 5. The Petitioner was engaged in import of various types of goods which were stored in its godown at Navi Mumbai, before sale. The Petitioner had imported goods into the area of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the Respondent, for use, consum