Disposed

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. v. Manilal Gangji Shah

Bombay HC27 Aug 2009AO/543/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal where the appellant Corporation withdrew its impugned notice and order to address natural justice grievances, allowing fresh proceedings with a fair opportunity to the respondent, while leaving merits open.

What did the court decide?

Appelants to withdraw impugned notice and order with liberty to proceed afresh; Respondent to withdraw suit.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.543 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2009

¶3

The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. ...Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

Manilal Gangji Shah ...Respondents

¶6

Mrs.K.K.Soraan i/b Mr.R.A.Malandkar for Appellants.

¶7

Mr.Madhav J.Jamdar for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 27, 2009.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶11

The principal relief claimed in the Suit is to question the legality and validity of Notice No.N/BF/BI/849/2001-02 dated 30th June 2001 and order passed by the appropriate authority bearing No.N/BF/BI/849/351/ 2001-02 dated 31st July 2001, interalia on the ground that the same is opposed to principles of natural justice. It is not in dispute that the said Suit

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

is still pending. During the pendency of the Suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff took out Notice of Motion for interim relief, which has been allowed by the Trial Court.

¶14

Counsel appearing for the Appellant Corporation, in all fairness,

¶15

submits that to assuage the grievance of the Respondent/Plaintiff that principles of natural justice have not been followed, the Appellant/Corporation would withdraw the impugned notice as well as order of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner with liberty to issue fresh notice and give fair opportunity to the Respondent/Plaintiff and proceed against the structure in question in accordance with law. If this statement were to be accepted, nothing would survive in the Suit filed by the Respondent. Indeed, the Corporation in that situation is justified in requesting the Court for a direction that the proposed proceedings may be proceeded in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made by the City Civil Court in the impugned Judgment. There is no difficulty in accepting this request being just and fair.

¶16

In the circumstances, this Appeal is disposed of on recording the statement of the Corporation that the impugned notice dated 30th June 2001

¶17

: 3 :

¶18

and the order dated 31st July 2001 are withdrawn with liberty to the Corporation to proceed against the disputed structure afresh in accordance with law, after giving fair opportunity to the Respondent in that behalf. In view of this position, nothing would survive for consideration in the Suit. The Respondent/Plaintiff would move the Trial Court for withdrawing the Suit in terms of the arrangement recorded in this order. This Appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

¶19

Needless to observe that all questions on merits of the contentions

¶20

available to both sides are left open to be considered afresh in accordance with law.

¶21

In the event, the decision of the Corporation is adverse to the Plaintiff, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of communication thereof to the Plaintiff.

¶22

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. v. Manilal Gangji Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. v. Manilal Gangji Shah

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

Maruti Valkya Jitekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.Ghaisas and Company Vs Smt.Rohini Chandrakant Tambwalkar

Vijay Dnyanoba Natak and Ors. Vs Ace Glass Containers Limited (Formerly Known as Owen Brockway (India) Limited) and Anr.

Mr. Nilesh Laxmikant Kudalkar Vs Nilkanth Govind Wakankar and Ors.

M/S. Gajalee Coastal Food Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Dashrath Bhagat Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Ors.