Prakash R. Mehta v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Mumbai Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )

Bombay HC24 Aug 2007FA/125/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal withdrawn upon appellant's undertaking to submit documents for regularisation of construction. Court stayed respondent action for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appellant given eight weeks for details; respondent to abstain from action on notice during this period.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2007

¶4

 Prakash R. Mehta .. Appellant

¶5

 (Orig. Plaintiff)

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika

¶8

 (Municipal Corporation of

¶9

 Greater Mumbai) .. Respondent

¶10

 (Orig.Defendant)

¶11

 Mr. P.G.Lad,Advocate, for the the appellant.

¶12

 Mr. J.J.Xavier,Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

Prakash R. Mehta Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Mumbai Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ) — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶16

 1. The learned Counsel for the parties make a
 statement that pending the Appeal, the appellant has
 made an application for regularisation of the disputed
 construction/enclosure. However, as per the information
 given by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the
 application could not be considered because certain
 documents are not submitted. The learned Counsel for

¶17

 the appellant makes a statement that he will submit all
 the relevant documents before the concerned Executive
 Engineer, Building Proposals (City-III) within two weeks
 from today and the learned Counsel for the respondent
 states that the Execuive Engineer may decide the
 application within four weeks thereafter in accordance
 with law.

¶18

 2. With this request, the learned Counsel for the
 appellant seeks to withdraw the Appeal. The Appeal
 stands disposed of as withdrawn. However, in view of
 the fact that the appellant wants to proceed with the
 application for regularisation of the disputed work as
 per law, the respondent shall not take any action on the
 basis of the impugned notice for a period of eight weeks
 from today.

¶19

 3. Any observations made by the trial Court in the
 judgment in Suit No.5046 of 2000 shall not be taken into
 consideration by the concerned Executive Engineer while
 deciding the application for regularisation.

Prakash R. Mehta v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Mumbai Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Narayan Dhatrak Vs Ayub Noor Mohammad Sayyed and Ors.

Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society Vs Hirabai Hansraj Surji Charitable Trust and Ors.

Faiyyaz Hasham Shaikh Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Prakash R. Mehta Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Mumbai Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )

Prakash R. Mehta v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Mumbai Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Narayan Dhatrak Vs Ayub Noor Mohammad Sayyed and Ors.

Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society Vs Hirabai Hansraj Surji Charitable Trust and Ors.

Faiyyaz Hasham Shaikh Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Prakash R. Mehta Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Mumbai Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )

A compact analysis

Vilasrao Kashinath Deshmukh Vs Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr.

Raju Hemraj Chanda Vs Pandharinath Bapurao Kawade