This Single Judge disposed of an absent appeal challenging an impugned order. The Court dismissed the appeal because the appellants were defiant in constructing a building without sanctioned plans despite notices and repaired permissions.
The appeal was dismissed; the impugned order remained upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 AO.660/2015-CAA.809/2015(12)
mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 660 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 809 OF 2015 IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 660 OF 2015
Ali Ahmed R. Qureshi & Ors. ...Appellants/Orig.Pltffs. Vs. M.C.G.M. & Anr. ...Respondents/Orig.Defdts
None present for the Appellant Mr. N.V. Walavalkar a/w. Mr. A.V. Diwate for Respondent No.1 BMC
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 26TH OCTOBER, 2015
P.C. :
Rule. Returnable forthwith.
2 AO.660/2015-CAA.809/2015(12)
hearing. The respondent has issued notice by speed post as also courier to the appellants directing them to appear on the next date of hearing which was on 23rd August, 2015. Thereafter the appeal appeared on board but had not reached hearing. When it reached hearing the appellant and Advocate are absent despite specific notice.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
3 AO.660/2015-CAA.809/2015(12)
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment /order.
Ali Ahmed R. Qureshi & Ors.
M.C.G.M. & Anr.
Roshan Dalvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
