Disposed

Kamla Real Estate Hub Private Ltd. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2015WP/26/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted time to the respondent corporation to take instructions on a regularization proposal. It directed the supply of a rejection letter to the petitioner's counsel, upheld the remedy under section 47 for appeal, and extended interim relief for two months while merits remained open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to supply rejection communication; interim relief continued for two months; appeal remedy clarified.

Kamla Real Estate Hub Private Ltd. Vs Mumbai… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

oswp26

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.26 OF 2015

¶5

Kamla Real Estate Hub Pvt.Ltd.
vs.

¶6

Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and another

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Pradeep J. Thorat for the Petitioner
Ms Shobha Ajitkumar for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2015

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1On the last two dates, time was granted to the
Advocate for the respondents to take instructions
whether the proposal/application for regularization
is pending. Even today, the learned counsel for the
Municipal Corporation has no instructions.

¶14

2Notice was issued to the petitioner under sub-
section 1 of section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short `the MRTP
Act'). In terms of sub-section (3) of section 53,
the petitioner has submitted a proposal for
regularization dated 27th November 2014 which is
actually submitted on 28th November 2014.

¶15

3At this stage, the learned counsel for the
respondents has produced for perusal of the Court a
letter dated 8th January 2015 addressed by the
Executive Engineer, (Building Proposal), H Ward of

¶16

2 oswp26

¶17

the Municipal Corporation by which the petitioner's
Architects have been informed that the proposal
dated 27th November 2014 has been rejected. We
direct the Advocate for the respondents to supply a
copy of the said communication to the Advocate for
the petitioner.

¶18

4Now the remedy of the petitioner is under
section 47 of the MRTP Act.

¶19

5Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing
the following order:

¶20

(I) We direct the Advocate for the respondents to supply a copy of the aforesaid communication dated 8^th January 2015 to the Advocate for the petitioner within a period of two days from today;

¶21

(II)It will be open for the petitioner to
prefer an appeal under section 47 of the MRTP
Act for challenging the order of rejection of
the proposal;

¶22

(III)To enable the petitioner to do so and to
apply for appropriate interim relief, ad-
interim relief granted on 9th December 2014
shall continue to operate for a period of two
months from today;

¶23

(IV)All contentions on merits are kept open.

Kamla Real Estate Hub Private Ltd. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Real Estate Hub Private Ltd. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Parmeshwar Chandrasa Kumbhar Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi and Ors.

Saroj Babubhai Kapadiya and Ors. Vs Nashik Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Nandvijay C.H.S. Ltd. Vs the Administrator Nandvijay C.H.S. Ltd., and Ors.

Anil Raut and 7 Others Vs D N Nagar Mamta Co-Operative Hsg Ltd. and 5 Others

Pankaj Rach and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Other

Addvision Outdoor Advertising Agency, through Partner, Sangram Chandrakant Dubal Vs the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pandharpur and Ors.