Disposed

Pundalik B. Berde and 8 Ors. v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2016WP/1168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition and associated proceedings based on Consent Minutes of Order where petitioners except one had vacated premises and demolished structures, and undertakings were accepted.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of Consent Minutes; undertakings accepted; pending notice/motion disposed of.

Pundalik B. Berde and 8 Ors. Vs the Maharashtra Housing… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

6_nmwl738_16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.738 OF 2016 AND CHAMBER SUMMONS(ST) NO.367 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1168 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1168 OF 2016

¶3

Pundalik B. Berde & Ors.

¶4

...Applicants

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, through Chief Officer & Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

...

¶9

Mr. Shreepad Murthy with Mr. Abhishek Patil i/b. Mr. Anand Nikhil for the Applicants.

¶10

Mr. Girish Utangale with Mr. Chetan Mhatre i/b. Utangale & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

Mr. Hemand S. Rajthattha i/b. M/s. RMG Law Associates for Respondent No.4.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶13

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 5th DECEMBER, 2016.

¶15

P. C. :

¶16

The Consent Minutes of the order duly signed by all the Petitioners except the Petitioner No.8, the Advocate for the Petitioners,

¶17

the Respondent No.4, the Advocate for the Respondent No.4, the Respondent No.6 and the Advocate for Respondent No.6, are taken on

Megha

1/3

6_nmwl738_16.doc

record and marked as 'X-1' for identification. There is no dispute between the parties to the Consent Minutes of Order that the Petitioner No.8 has already vacated the premises in his possession and the premises has been already demolished. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner No.8 has already executed an agreement with the Respondent No.4 for grant of permanent alternate accommodation.

¶22

It is stated that all the Petitioners except the Petitioner No.8 are personally present in the Court. The said Petitioners have given undertakings which are recorded in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the Consent Minutes of Order.

¶23

Accordingly, following order is passed :-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) The petition stands disposed of in terms of the Consent

¶26

Minutes of Order taken on record and marked 'x-1' for identification;

¶27

(ii) The undertakings of the Petitioners except the Petitioner No.8 recorded in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the Consent Minutes of Order, are accepted;

¶28

(iii) The statements made by Respondent Nos.4 and 6 in the

¶29

Consent Minutes of Order and particularly in paragraph

Megha

2/3

6_nmwl738_16.doc

No.6 are also accepted;

¶34

(iv) The pending notice of motion and / or Chamber

¶35

Summons do not survive and the same are disposed of.

¶36

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶37

Megha

¶38

3/3

Pundalik B. Berde and 8 Ors. v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pundalik B. Berde and 8 Ors. v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Kulkarni and Co. Vs Mun.Corpn.of Greater Bombay and Anr.

Ram Swarath R. Yadav and 4 Ors. Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner and 11 Ors.

Pravin Ankush Mayekar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Dr. Sou. Manjusha Abhijit Jadhav Vs Dr. Abhijit Vasant Jadhav

Dr.Sou. Manjusha Abhijit Jadhav Vs Dr. Shri. Abhijit Vasant Jadhav

Dr.Sou. Manjusha Abhijit Jadhav Vs Dr. Shri. Abhijit Vasant Jadhav