Dismissed

Harita Sunil Parab v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Aug 2011WP/527/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order dismissing the prayer for compensation from the landlord. The court held that such a claim lies outside the scope of the writ petition regarding illegal dispossession. Petitioner directed to approach the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for recovery of compensation/damages from the landlord.

Harita Sunil Parab Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

cri-wp-527-11.doc

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 527 OF 2011

Harita Sunil Parab

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Ms. Harita Sunil Parab, petitioner, party-in-person present. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State. Mr. Shailesh Kantharia for respondent no.4.

¶12

CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ.

¶13

August 04, 2011.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

We have heard the petitioner, party-in-person and Ms.

¶16

Mhatre the learned APP for the State of Maharashtra. Mr. Shailesh

¶17

Kantharia, the learned counsel appears for respondent no.4.

¶18

The report dated 27/6/2011 submitted by the Investigating

¶19

¶20

cri-wp-527-11.doc

¶21

Officer from Dadabhai Nauroji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai states that pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been put in possession of the subject room, from which she was claimed to have been illegally dispossessed. She also states that as per the order passed by this court on 19/4/2011, she collected all her belongings/articles.

¶22

The petitioner, party-in-person, therefore, urged before us that the only relief, which requires to be considered in this petition for payment of compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to be paid to her by the landlord i.e. respondent no.4. and in support of this prayer she has invited our attention to her Advocate’s notice dated 21/7/2010 addressed to respondent no.4. It appears from the said notice that on 5/6/2010 when petitioner entered the bathroom with hot water, she slipped and fell down and sustained heavy burn injuries. She was admitted to the hospital for treatment for which he had to spent about Rs.3,00,000/-. As per the petitioner, this incident had taken place solely because of the negligence of the landlord in maintaining the toilet block and other premises in good conditions. It is thus clear that the claim for compensation, as raised through legal notice dated 21/7/2010, does not arise or has no connection

¶23

¶24

cri-wp-527-11.doc

¶25

with the main grievance raised in this petition, namely, illegal dispossession. The petitioner’s remedy for recovery of compensation/ damages from the landlord may be somewhere else and such a prayer cannot be entertained in the instant petition.

¶26

Hence, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the

¶27

petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for recovery of compensation/damages from the landlord.

¶28

We make it clear that the observations made in this order are

¶29

without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties.

¶30

(U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Harita Sunil Parab v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harita Sunil Parab v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Parvinder Kaur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tabrej Abdul Hamid Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gangu a Laljani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Menghraj Gehi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sher Bahadur Akram Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Kantilal Mutha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.