Dismissed

Sanket Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2015WP/2993/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to interfere with a structural audit notice due to conflicting expert reports. It held the matter involved disputed facts better suited for the Civil Court and granted liberty to approach the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file proceedings before the Civil Court; no steps on the notice to be taken for three weeks contingent upon the petitioner providing an undertaking to occupy at his own risk and bear sole r

Sanket Shah Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

ash

wp-2993.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2993 OF 2015

¶5

Shri Sanket Shah. .. Petitioner Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Bhavin R. Bhatia for the Petitioner. Shri Vinod Mahadik for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri M.K. Tanna for the Respondent No.3.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ DATED : 11TH DECEMBER 2015

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent.

¶11

The Petitioner has annexed to the Petition a structural audit report. The third Respondent has tendered across the bar the status report on the structural stability of the building in question. There are contradictory views expressed by the experts in the field. In any event,

¶12

the Municipal Corporation cannot act upon the notice issued under

ash

wp-2993.15

Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 unless the matter is referred to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in view of conflicting reports.

¶17

This Petition involves the disputed questions of fact and therefore, in our view, the controversy can be more satisfactorily resolved by the Civil Court.

¶18

Accordingly, we dispose of the Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. To enable the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy, the further steps on the basis of the impugned notice shall not be taken for a period of three weeks from today subject to the condition of the Petitioner filing an undertaking within one week from today stating that he will continue to occupy the premises in his possession at his own risk. Undertaking to further state that in the event the building or any part thereof collapses and any loss is caused to any third party, the Petitioner shall be solely responsible for the same.

¶19

(G.S. PATEL, J)

Sanket Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanket Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

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

Bhatawadekar and Co. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bharat Gaikwad and Ors. Vs M/S. Bhatawadekra and Company and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Vithoba Jage and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Nanoba Mariyappa Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pannalal S. Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Vivek Pravin Kumar Nayak Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.