Disposed

Mala Chuckerbutty v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2008WP/281/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning unauthorized construction. The court directed the petitioner to apply for regularization within three weeks. Pending application, demolition threat was restrained, and an adverse decision would be subjected to a two-week status quo for challenge.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to apply for regularization within three weeks; demolition threat stayed; status quo for two weeks if adverse order passed.

Mala Chuckerbutty Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION(L) NO.234 OF 2008

¶4

 Mrs.Mala Chuckerbutty. ..Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent.

¶7

 Mr.Armin Wandrewala, Hiren Mehta, Akshay Vani,
 Siddharth Naik i/b. Akshay Vani for petitioner.

¶8

 Ms.Archana Joshi for respondent.

¶9

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶10

 DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2008.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

¶13

 2. The limited issue that arises for

¶14

 consideration in the present Petition is in the

¶15

 context of recent work carried out by the Petitioner
 in the suit flat. From the photograph, which is
 appended to the Petition, it is obvious that the work
 has been substantially completed. The Petitioner’s

¶16

 case is that the said work was required to be done
 urgently for security reason. The Petitioner is

¶17

 willing to abide by all the directions that may be
 issued by the Corporation in relation to the said
 work including to apply for regularisation of the
 said work.

¶18

¶19

 3. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the
 present case, the Corporation is inclined to consider
 the application for regularisation if made by the
 Petitioner within specified time. In the
 circumstances, it is ordered that the Petitioner may
 apply to the Assistant Engineer, Building Proposal,
 H-West Ward of the Corporation within three weeks
 from today through authorised architect and submit
 all necessary documents in support of the proposal
 for regularisation.

¶20

 4. If such application is filed, the competent
 authority will decide the said application on its own
 merits in accordance with the law within four weeks
 from the date of presentation. The competent
 authority may call upon the Society to offer its
 comment, if any, on the proposed regularisation
 application before taking any final decision on the
 proposal. Till the proposal is finally disposed off
 the Corporation shall not give effect to the threat
 of demolition given in communication dated 4th
 February, 2008 at page 22-23 of the paper book.

¶21

 5. In the event, the decision is adverse to the
 Petitioner, the Corporation shall maintain status quo

¶22

¶23

 for further period of two weeks from the date of
 service of the order on the Petitioner, so as to
 enable the Petitioner to challenge the said order
 before the appropriate forum, as may be advised.

¶24

 6. In the event, the Petitioner fails to make
 application within specified time as aforesaid, the
 Corporation will be free to proceed against disputed
 structure in accordance with the law.

¶25

 7. In view of the above nothing survives for
 consideration in this Petition. Disposed off
 accordingly.

¶26

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Mala Chuckerbutty v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mala Chuckerbutty v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aptech Traning Ltd. Vs S.Kumars Online Ltd.

Jaysunth Dye Chem P.Ltd. Vs Gaikwar Mills Ltd.

Municipal Corporation for the City of Jalgaon Vs Official Liquidator ,High Cour, Bombay of M/S. Seth Woollen Mills Pvt.Ltd.

Sicom Ltd. Vs Rajesh J. Sarvaiya and Anr.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Imp Powers Ltd. and Anr.

Maharashtra State Warehousig Corporation Vs Official Liquidator of W.G. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd.