Dismissed

Harishchandra Anant Pandit and Anr. v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2016WP/2016/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected a writ petition filed by co-owners of a property. The Petitioners challenged construction activities by the Third Respondent after terminating their development agreement. The court held that civil remedies are the appropriate forum and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to seek appropriate reliefs from the Civil Court; Writ Petition rejected.

Harishchandra Anant Pandit and Anr. Vs the Commissioner… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

WP-2016.15

¶3

ash

¶4

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2016 OF 2015

¶6

Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders.

¶7

Shri V.P. Patankar for the Petitioners. Mrs. Shobha Ajitkumar for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Savita T. Suryawanshi for the Respondent Nos.2, 3A and 3B.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & C.V. BHADANG, JJ DATED : 6TH JANUARY 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners are claiming to be the co-owners of the property subject matter of this Petition. The Petitioners entered into a development agreement with the Third Respondent by which the Third Respondent was permitted to develop the property. Notice of termination of the development agreement was issued by the Petitioners on 15th May 2013. Based on the termination of the development agreement, the Petitioners have already instituted a suit which is pending in this Court.

¶11

¶12

WP-2016.15

¶13

ash

¶14

By this Petition, the Petitioners are objecting to the construction activities undertaken by the Third Respondent. It is alleged that the Third Respondent without intimation to the Petitioners have amalgamated the Petitioners' property with the two adjacent properties and got the plan sanctioned.

¶15

The Third Respondent has acted as an agent of the Petitioners as the Petitioners had appointed the Third Respondent as a Developer. Therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled to challenge the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. If the contention of the Petitioners is that in view of the termination of the development agreement, the Third Respondent cannot proceed with the development, it will be for the Petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs from the appropriate Civil Court.

¶16

Hence, we decline to entertain this Petition by granting liberty to seek appropriate reliefs from the Civil Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected.

¶17

(C.V. BHADANG, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Harishchandra Anant Pandit and Anr. v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Anant Pandit and Anr. v. the Commissioner 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Richard D'Souza and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

M/S Shashanti Consultant and Investment Co.Pt.Ltd. Vs the Mun.Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Cosmos Homes India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporatio of Greater Bumbai and 11 Ors.

The Manganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund and Ors.

The Manganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund and Ors.

Mr. Anant Vitthal Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.