Dismissed

H.V.C. Developers v. the Chief Engineer and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2010AO/423/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal against an order refusing ad-interim relief for injunction regarding construction on property plots where the alleged construction was found to be on a different plot number. Consequently, the connected civil application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order refusing injunction was upheld; connected civil application disposed of.

H.V.C. Developers Vs the Chief Engineer and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

AO 423-10

¶2

¶3

Anand

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.423 OF 2010
WITH

¶6

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.554 OF 2010

¶7

H.V.C.Developers

¶8

..Appellant

¶9

 V/s.

¶10

The Chief Engineer & anr...Respondents

¶11

Mr.D.H.Mehta i/b.Mr.Pravin Mehta, Advocate,
for the Appellant

¶12

Mr.Anil Singh i/b.Mr.R.A.Malandkar, Advocate,
for MCGM

¶13

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:16TH AUGUST, 2010

¶14

P.C.

¶15

.Heard both the learned Counsel for the

¶16

parties.

¶17

2.This Appeal is directed against an

¶18

order dated 9th April, 2010 passed by the

¶19

learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi,

¶20

Mumbai, refusing ad-interim relief to the

¶21

Appellant. The Appellant came with the case

¶22

that they have purchased property bearing CTS

¶23

2 AO 423-10

¶24

No.324 and alleged that on that property,
MunicipalAuthoritiesarestarting

¶25

construction, demolition and re-construction
of toilet blocks. The learned Counsel for the

¶26

Respondents points out from the Affidavit of
one Rajendra Ambadas Ingle that the
construction is going on the property bearing
CTS Nos.325, 326 & 327 (part) at village Mogra
and not on the property bearing CTS No.324.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the Appellant states
that the Appellant has applied for measurement
through City Surveyor. If the Appellant can
establish that construction is going on his
Plot then he could seek its demolition. But
since the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai states that the construction is being
carried out on the property bearing CTS Nos.
325, 326 & 327, & since the matter pertains to
constructionoftoiletblockswhich

¶28

essentially serve a slum around that property,

¶29

the learned Trial Judge was right in refusing
injunction. As far as the property bearing

¶30

3 AO 423-10

¶31

CTS No.324 is concerned, it is not being
touched by Respondent, there cannot be any
restrain on the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai to carry out construction on
the property bearing CTS No.325, 326 & 327.

¶32

3.Appeal from Order is, therefore,

¶33

dismissed.

¶34

4.In view of dismissal of Appeal from
Order, Civil Application No.554 of 2010 does
not survive and the same is disposed of.

H.V.C. Developers v. the Chief Engineer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.V.C. Developers v. the Chief Engineer and Anr.

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

Jagannath Ramdayal Yadav Vs 1. Tahira Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Metal Box India Limited Vs M/S S.F. Engineer, and Other

Metal Box India Limited Vs M/S S.F. Engineer, and Other

Madhusudan Suryaji Tupe and Ors. Vs Sou Shobha Tanaji Mane and Anr.

The Society of the St. Peters High School through Chairman Cap. P.V. Williams and Ors. Vs the Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd., and Ots

Francis Josheph Ferreira and Anr. Vs the Additional Collector and Competent