p3.123.

17-wpl

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

rt
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.123/2017

ou
Mr.Galaxy Aviation Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner

C
Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

h
Mr. Chirag Mody a/w. Mr. Ashok Purohit, Mr. Tejas Gokahle, Ms.
ig
Shalaka Mali i/b. Ashok Purohit & Co. for the Petitioner
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the
Respondents
H
CORAM : K. K. TATED, J.
DATE : JANUARY 18, 2017
P.C.:
y

1. Mentioned. Not on board. At the request of learned counsel for

ba

the petitioner, the matter is taken on board for urgent orders.

2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

om

India, the petitioner challenges the demand notice dated 28.12.2016

issued by the Tahasildar, Labour Dues Recovery Mumbai City u/s. 267
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code).
B

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advocate
on record issued notice dated 17.01.2017 to the office of Government
Pleader, High Court, Original Side, Mumbai along with a copy of Writ
Petition stating that the petitioner will be moving this court for urgent
orders today at 4.30 pm. He further submits that today also they

Basavraj G Patil 1/5

::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 13:48:14 :::

 p3.123.17-wpl

issued notice dated 18.01.2017 at 11.05 am to the office of

Government Pleader, High Court, Original Side, Mumbai stating that

rt
they are moving this court for urgent orders and in spite of that the

ou
respondent's officers sealed their premises i.e. (i) Shop No.5 on the
ground floor at East of Cambata Building (ii) Office space on first floor
at West and South ­West side of Cambata Building (iii) Office space on

C
fourth floor at East and West side of Cambata Building; and (iv) Office
space on fifth floor at East Wing of Cambata Building, more particularly
described in para 4(A) of the petition on page 3.

h
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are not
ig
liable to pay any amount as per the said demand notice. He submits
that the suit premises belongs to Cambata Trust. They are tenant of the
H
Cambata Trust. They are paying monthly rent along with taxes to the
Cambata Trust. He submits that as on today, there is no decree against
y

them passed by any court for payment of sum of Rs.4,45,14,633/­. He

submits that without giving any particulars for what purpose they are
ba

attaching and sealing their properties, the respondent's officers, in a

high handed manner, and in spite of receiving a notice that the
om

petitioner is moving this court today i.e. 18.01.2017 at 4.30 pm,

attached and sealed their premises.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest
B

of justice, during pendency of the present Writ Petition, the respondent

may be directed to remove their seal with immediate effect so that they
can conduct their day to day business from the suit premises. He
submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to give an
undertaking to this court that they will not create further third party

Basavraj G Patil 2/5

::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 13:48:14 :::

 p3.123.17-wpl

right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises till hearing and
final disposal of the Writ Petition.

rt
6. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent

ou
vehemently opposed for granting any ad­interim relief. He submits that
in the present proceedings the Tahasildar issued notice u/s. 267 of the

C
Code for recovery of Rs.4,45,14,633/­. He submits that against the said
notice, an appeal is provided u/s. 274 of the code. Hence, there is no
question of granting ad­interim relief in favour of the petitioner. He

h
submits that in the present proceedings the petitioner is challenging the
demand notice issued by the Tahasildar. Hence, the matter is required
ig
to be heard by a Division Bench. He submits that the Authority has
already executed the order attaching and sealing the petitioner's
H
property today morning. Therefore, there is no question of granting
any ad­interim relief in favour of the petitioner at present.
y

7. Heard both sides at length. Bare reading of demand notice dated

ba

28.12.2016 issued by the Tahasildar u/s.267 of the Code shows that

they have to recover sum of Rs.4,45,14,633/­ from M/s. Cambata
Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner M/s. Galaxy Aviation Solution.
om

When this court called upon the learned senior counsel for the
respondent to show any decree and/or order passed by any court
and/or authority for the said amount, he was unable to show the same.
B

8. It is to be noted that, in the present proceedings the petitioner

has placed on record rent receipt issued by the Cambata Trust showing
that they are landlord/trustee and they are recovering the rent from the
petitioner in respect of four suit premises. Nowhere it is stated in the

Basavraj G Patil 3/5

::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 13:48:14 :::

 p3.123.17-wpl

rent receipts that M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. is owner of the suit
premises. This itself shows that the respondents in high handed

rt
manner sealed the suit premises though the notice was issued by the

ou
petitioner to the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Original
Side, Mumbai yesterday i.e. 17.01.2017 at 1.15 pm.

C
9. It is to be noted that, if the respondent Authority, in a high
handed manner takes such action then the court can interfere with the
same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, whether an

h
alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner or not, can be
decided at the time of final hearing of the Writ Petition.
ig
10. The objection raised by the respondent that the petition would lie
H
before a Division Bench, may be considered by the office and place the
matter before appropriate court.
y

11. The learned senior counsel for the respondents applied for some
ba

time to file reply placing all documents on record. He submits that

Dr.Padmashri Bainade, Dy. Collector (General) present on behalf of the
respondent.
om

12. Considering the manner in which the respondent authority has

issued demand notice and sealed the suit premises, it is not clear
whether any court has passed any order against the petitioner for
B

payment of Rs.4,45,14,633/­ and whether M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt.

Ltd. is owner of the suit property, I am satisfied that the petitioner has
made out a case for ad­interim relief at present.

Basavraj G Patil 4/5

::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 13:48:14 :::

 p3.123.17-wpl

13. Hence, following order is passed:

a. The respondents are directed to remove the seal from the

rt
suit premises with access to the petitioner to their premises,

ou
immediately, in any case, on or before 10.30 a.m. on 19.01.2017.

b. The petitioner is restrained by an order of injunction from

C
creating any third party right, title or interest in respect of the
suit premises till hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition.

c. Liberty granted to the respondent, if they so desire, to file

h
an Affidavit­in­Reply on or before 25.01.2017 with copy to other
ig
side.
H
d. Liberty granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder thereafter.

e. This order is passed in presence of the respondent's

y

officers.
ba

f. The learned senior counsel for the respondent waives

service.
om

g. S.O. to 30.01.2017, for further hearing.

B

(K. K. TATED, J.)

Basavraj G Patil 5/5

::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 13:48:14 :::