The Writ Court examined a petition seeking directions for the Corporation to act regarding adjacent property. The court noted disputed facts required civil trial and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, disposing of the petition.
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.
WP.1904/2014(8)
1
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1904 OF 2014
Shiv Shaila Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs.
The Municipal Corporation & Ors.
...Petitioner
...Respondents
Mr. A.R. Pai i/b. Ms. Bina R. Pai, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Uma Wagle, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Ms. Vandana Mahadik, Advocate for the BMC
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :16TH NOVEMBER, 2016
P.C. :
The Petitioner seeks directions to Corporation to take action in respect of the property adjoining the Society building.
considered the submissions advanced. In the facts we observe
that to decide the issues raised by the Petitioner questions of
facts, which may be disputed at certain stages will have to be
gone into.
WP.1904/2014(8)
2
remedies as permissible in Law.
With the above observation the Petition is disposed of.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the Corporation to take action on a property adjoining the Society building.
Shiv Shaila Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.
The Municipal Corporation
NARESH H. PATIL
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
