Disposed

M/S. Matra Realty Ltd. v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Bombay HC9 Jun 2008WP/1446/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner time to file an affidavit proving service. It休闲娱乐 the petitioner with liberty to approach the Commissioner to establish that no permission under the Municipal Corporation Act is needed. The Corporation directed not to act on the notice until 17th June 2008.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach Commissioner/authority to satisfy pleas regarding lack of need for Municipal Corporation Act permission; Corporation directed not to implement notice till 17th J

2.Mr.Mehta appearing for petitioner states that the notice of present petition has been given to the respondents and he has produced acknowledgement from the Legal Department of Municipal Corporation. Mr.Mehta seeks time to file an affidavit proving service. Time granted for the same till 13th June 2008.

3.Mr.Mehta states that the urgency is that the Corporation has directed that the Board should be removed within 48 hours failing which it would be removed departmentally at the risk of petitioner. The notice is dated 31st May 2008 and despatched by R.P.A.D. which was received on 3rd June 2008.

subject notice without satisfying itself as to whether the Board that has been put up at site amounts to an advertisement and, therefore, provisions requiring prior permission under Municipal Corporation Act are attracted.

5.In any event, the petitioner addressed a letter to the MHADA informing them. Further, considering the project which is taken up of development at site, it is for informing the concerned about the project and about the agency undertaking the same, those involved in structural and other designings so also legal matters that, for information, the board has been put up. There is no question of any advertisement or commercial aspect being involved in the same. This is not an invitation as well to the general public to come and buy flats in the project. In such circumstances and when nobody is appearing for B.M.C. despite notice, the board be protected so that the petitioner satisfies the authorities concerned.

6.Noneappearsalthoughserved. Considering the fact that the petitioner seeks an opportunity to make good the case in terms of their representation dated 5th June 2008 so also to satisfy the authorities that no permission under the Municipal Corporation Act is required, interest of justice would be served if the petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach Commissioner/ appropriate authority of Municipal Corporation and satisfy him/her with regard to the pleas raised in the representation and the present petition. To enable the petitioner to pursue that remedy, it is directed that the Corporation shall not give effect to the notice till 17tth June 2008. All contentions of parties in respect of subject notice are kept open. Petition disposed of accordingly.

M/S. Matra Realty Ltd. v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Matra Realty Ltd. v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cfl Aromas India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Shri Brihad Bhartiya Samaj Vs

Precision Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Vs M/S. Eastern International Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Vidyalankar Institute of Technology Vs Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union

Industrial Development Bank of India Vs O.L.of Bharat Pipes and Fittings Ltd.